Harish Chandra Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
(2.) PETITIONERS are aggrieved by the order dated 23.5.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, in the Factory Case No. 01 of 2013, whereby the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners, being the Occupier and Manager of the Factory, for the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act. The Official complaint was filed by the factory Inspector, Bokaro Circle No. 2, stating therein that in M/s. Kargali Washery, Kargali, the coals were brought from the different mines for washing. It is stated in the complaint petition that plate and railing of a platform in the said washery was damaged and the welder, helper and fitter, who replacing the plate and railing of the platform, met the accident, that took place due to the fact that the necessary arrangements of safety were not there and even the safety belt and helmet were not given to the workers and in the accident the worker died. In the written complaint filed by the Factory Inspector, it was mentioned that there was violation of Rule 55 -A of the Bihar Factories Rules, as also the violation of Section 88 of the Factories Act and the relevant Rules, regarding notice of accidents, making out the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act and in the said complaint, the petitioners were described as Occupier and Manager of the Factory. On the basis of the written complaint, the cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act by the impugned order.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has taken a short point challenging the impugned order, submitting that the petitioners are not the Occupier and Manager of the Factory. It has been submitted that the Factory Inspector himself had, by a letter contained in Annexure -5 to the application in the matter of renewal of the license of the factory, had disclosed the position that there is no 'occupier' of the Factory in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that even the petitioner No. 2 was wrongly shown as Manager, even though he is not the Manager of the Factory. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.;