- (1.) The criminal law was set in motion on the written complaint filed by the complainant-Deputy Chief Inspector of Factory, Jamshedpur alleging that the factory premises of M/s H.V.T.L. was intercepted by a Team headed in the leadership of the then Inspector of Factories, Jamshedpur Circle No. 1 and during course of inspection, it was found that the provisions of Sections 61, 45(4), 47 & 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 79, 87, 95 (schedule-8 Sub-rule 5) & 65 Jharkhand /Bihar Factory Rules were violated, which attracted punishment under Section 92 of the Factories Act.
(2.) By enclosing a separate sheet with the complaint petition following allegations were made in support of the prosecution; (i) Notice of period of work for adults on contract labour was not displayed within the factory premises. The relevant information was not provided in the prescribed form. (ii) Compliance of Rule 87 and 88 of the Bihar/Jharkhand Factory Rules, 1950 were wanting since the workmen were not provided with leave book and that the leave with wages registers was also not provided by the Manager (Industrial Guideline) on demand. It was further detected that the inspection of "Shot Blasting Plant" was not being made by a competent person on weekly basis and the concerned register was also not maintained which attracted violation of Rule 95, (schedule-8 Sub-rule 5) & 65 Jharkhand/Bihar Factory Rules, 1950. It was detected that more than 1,000 workmen were working in M/s HVTL (Factory) but there was no Ambulance Room in the Factory Premises which was mandatory though it was replied by the Management that the service of Ambulance Room maintained by the TATA MOTORS was availed by this Factory. It was alleged that no exemption letter was obtained from the Chief Inspector of Factories, Jharkhand in this regard which attracted violation of Section 45(4) of the Factories Act read with Rule 65 of the Rule, 1950. No Rest Room or Shelter Room was found for the contract labourers which attracted violation of Section 47 of the Factories Act, 1947 and similarly there was only lunch room in place of a canteen in the factory premises. Absence of canteen in the factory premises attracted violation of Section 46 of the Factories Act.
(3.) To sum up, the complainant alleged that the occupier Shri Atam Prakash Arya and the Manager Shri V.N. Sharma of the factory had violated the provisions of law and rules referred to here-in-before which attracted punishment under Section 92 of the Factory Act, 1948.;