M.H. Beg, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of K. K. Modi, the "Occupier", and Balwant Singh Birdi, the Manager, of Modi Hurricane Lantern Factory, Modinagar, Meerut from charges for breaches of Sections 52 and 63 of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rule 78 of the U. P. Factories Rules, 1950, read with Section 62 of the Act.
(2.) THE respondents were prosecuted upon a complaint filed by the Chief Inspector of Factories, U. P., in the court of the District Magistrate, Meerut, which was ultimately disposed of by a First Class Magistrate of Ghaziabad who acquitted the respondents of all the charges levelled against them. According to the complaint, P. C. Joshi P. W. 1, Inspector of Factories, Meerut, visited the factory of the respondents at 2.30 P. M. on Sunday, the 4th of November, 1962, and found that 8 workers were working at that time without the delivery of a notice at the office of the Inspector of Factories. Meerut, by the Manager of the Factory of the intention to require these workers to work and without displaying a notice to that effect in the premises of the factory. Section 52(1) of the Act provides as follows:-- "52 Weekly holidays -- (1) No adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in a factory on the first day of the week (hereinafter referred to as the said day), unless - (a) he has or will have a holiday for a whole day on one of the three days immediately before or after the said day, and (b) the manager of the factory has, before the said day or the substituted day under Clause (a), whichever is earlier, -- (i) delivered a notice at the office of the Inspector of his intention to require the worker to work on the said day and of the day. which is to be substituted, and (ii) displayed a notice to that effect in the factory." The second charge was for a violation of Section 63 of the Act which provides as follows: "63. Hours of work to correspond with notice under Section 61 and, register under Section 62- No adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in any factory otherwise than in accordance with the notice of periods of work for adults displayed in the factory and the entries made before hand against his name in the register of adult workers of the factory." The third ground of complaint related to charges comprising three alleged violations of Rule 78 of the U. P. Factories Rules read with Section 62 of the Act. The first of these three charges was that entries regarding the attendance or absence of 7 workers were missing from 1st November, 1962, to 4th November, 1962, and had not been posted even until 2,30 p.m. on 4th November, 1962, although this should have done within four hours from the commencement of the work on November 1, 2 and 3, 1962 and within two hours on November 4, 1962. The second charge was that wrong entries had been made in regard to Richpal Singh and Vijay Pal Singh who had been found working on 4th November, 1962, although they were wrongly shown to be taking rest in the entries of the Register. The third charge was that the attendance register relating to 6 workers, who were actually found working on November 4, 1962, was not produced on demand or shown to the Inspector of of Factories, P. C. Joshi, P. W. 1, when he visited the factory. The whole set of charges is found in the complaint only because formally framed charges are not required by the procedure prescribed by law for summons case trials. The learned Magistrate who tried the case has held that the solitary testimony of the Factory Inspector could not be believed as against the evidence produced by the respondents who alleged that no worker was actually working within the factory when the Factory Inspector visited it. On this ground, the charges for violations of Section 52 and Section 63 of the Act were found not to have been established. In such cases, it is certainly prudent for the Factory Inspector to either obtain, if possible, some statements from persons who are found working and who could be produced at the trial, or to take witnesses with him who could corroborate his version. It is undoubtedly a very difficult task for a Factory Inspector to prove his version as against the statements made by those in charge of the factory supported by the statements made by those who may have been found working inside the factory. Workers who could depose against their Employers would be, to put it mildly, difficult to find. The trial court emphasized the fact that no one could be expected to work without payment for a whole day. The evidence of payments could only be given by the accused or their employees. The prosecution could have asked the learned Magistrate to summon the relevant account books of the Factory, but it did not do so. The statement made by Amarnath. D. W 2, who was one of the persons said to have been found by the Factory Inspector inside the factory shows that Amarnath did meet the Factory Inspector inside the factory. He, however, alleged that he had gone inside to show the factory to some of his friends although he was on leave on that day. Amarnath was the store-keeper and he stated that he had gone to the store room also on that day. The Factory Inspector stated that he found Amarnath making some entry in the ledger of the store room. The statement of the Factory Inspector relating to facts from which he inferred that 8 workers were actually working inside the factory is not quite so clear that it could be definitely held that these persons were actually working inside the factory. In the absence of any more definite evidence, I am not prepared to hold that it is established, beyond reasonable doubt, that 8 persons were actually working inside the factory when they were shown on rest. The facts stated by the Factory Inspector, taken with the admissions of Amarnath, D. W. 2, create a strong suspicion that Ss. 52 and 63 were being violated when the Factory Inspector visited the factory. It would, however, not be safe to convict the respondents merely on facts creating grave suspicion.
(3.) SO far as the violations of Rule 78 read with Section 62 of the Act are concerned, I find that respondent No. 1 K. K. Modi, the occupier, is unable to explain anything as he seems to have left everything to his Manager. He only stated that his Manager will explain every thing. Balwant Singh Birdi, the Manager, respondent No. 2, however, has admitted that the attendance register had not been filled up on November 1. 2, 3 and 4, 1962, as' required by Rule 78, so far as 7 workers are concerned. His explanation was that these entries could not be made immediately because it was the beginning of the month and a number of registers had to be filled up. The explanation given by Shanti Lal, D. W. 1, was that the practice was to take attendance on some 'Kachcha register' before it was copied out in the 'Pucca register'. Under cross-examination, he stated that he had not brought the Kuchcha register with him although he alleged that he had shown the Kuchcha register to the Factory Inspector. This witness also admitted that he signed the inspection note of the Factory Inspector. The statement of Shanti Lal indicates that he was trying to fill up the 'pucca register" when the Factory Inspector came to the factory and perhaps it was for this reason that entries were not duly filled up with regard to 7 workers only whereas the other entries were already there. This means that probably the other entries were also not made within time. The Factory Inspector stated that no Kuchcha register was shown to him. No such Kuchcha register was mentioned by the Manager who stated that the entries used to be made on the token cards of the workers, and, after looking into these token cards. the entries used to be made in the regular registers. The defence was that the regular attendance registers used to be sent to the office for calculation of wages of the workers at the beginning of the month. The result was that Rule 78 of the U. P. Factories Rules was certainly violated even on the admissions of or on behalf of the accused.;