P.L.Bhargava, J. - (1.) The applicant, Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava is the 'occupier' of a factory known as the Upper India Couper Paper Mills Company Limited, Lucknow. He was prosecuted for an offence, punishable under Section 92, Factories Act (63 of 1948) for contravention of the provisions of Section 54 of the same Act. Section 54, Factories Act is in these terms : "Subject to the provisions of Section 51, no adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in a factory for more than nine hours on any day."
(2.) The case for the prosecution was that, on 12-4-1950, an Inspector of Factories discovered that, on 18-2-1950, five persons were 'allowed' to work in the factory, of which the applicant is the occupier, for more than nine hours.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant opened his arguments with reference to a letter from the Chief Inspector of Factories, Uttar Pradesh, addressed to the District Magistrate of Lucknow, which is not on the record of the case before me but which has been filed in a connected case, pending in the Court of the City Magistrate of Lucknow. A copy of the letter should have been placed on the record of the case if the applicant intended to rely upon it. However, in order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant, and in view of the importance of the question raised before me, I have seen the letter and consider it worthwhile to quote it 'in extenso.' Its contents are as follows : "I have the honour to send herewith seven complaints against Shri Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava, Occupier and Shri Henry Thimas Maclaughlin, Manager of the Upper India Couper Paper Mills Ltd., Lucknow, under the Factories Act and request you to kindly inform the Court concerned for further action. Copies of the complaints are sent to the City Magistrate Lucknow, direct. "2. Will you please let me know the place and date fixed for hearing the case giving at least 15 days' notice so that the tour of the Inspector may be arranged accordingly and direct Shri Zami Abbas, Pleader, to conduct the case. "3. The accused may be heard at the first hearing and the case decided without the presence of the Inspector, if they plead guilty, otherwise another date may be fixed and the Inspector summoned. "4. In this connection your attention is invited to para. 5 of the G. O. No U-648(L)/XVIII 438(L)-42, dated 20-8-1943, addressed to all District Magistrates, and it is, therefore, requested that the Inspector concerned may please be summoned when the Court has made sure of the presence of the accused and has otherwise satisfied itself that the case is ready for hearing, as this would facilitate the work of the Inspectorate and reduce expenditure incurred on travelling allowance.";