Safety Equipment Was Admittedly Supplied to Workman: Jharkhand HC Quashes Criminal Case Against Factory Management

The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “there is no material on record to prima facie suggest that the Occupier or Manager are in any manner responsible for the unfortunate accident. Sections 97 and 111 was not looked into by the Inspector, as admitted in the complaint itself that the workman concern has gone to the roof. No case is made out against the petitioners in terms of the Factories Act.”

Advocate Salona Mittal appeared for the Appellant and Advocate S.K. Shukla appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

A Complaint was filed against BMC Metal Cast Pvt Ltd regarding an accident at their factory in Adityapur Industrial Area. An Employee was injured. It was found that the management of the factory had not provided safety and due to a lack of safety measures the victim sustained injury the management failed to comply with the provisions and violated the provisions of sections 32(B) and 32(C) of the Factory Act, 1948 and Rule 56(c)(a) of Jharkhand Factory Rule, 1950. Management also failed to produce records during an inspection by the complainant.

The Court noted that the admittedly occurrence took place in factory premises and the workman has also admitted that safety equipment has been supplied to him.

The Court stated that prima facie this is not a case that the management has not provided safe equipment to the workman. According to the Court to fasten liability upon the management one is also required to look into sections 97 and 111 of the Factory Act, 1948 and there are certain obligations cast upon the worker and the safety equipment has been supplied by the management and not taken advantage of the same, the workman is also liable under section 97 and 111 of the said Act.

The Court stated that at the first instance, the occupier and Manager must be prosecuted in terms of Section 92 of the Act, however, they may seek exemption under Section 101 of the said Act. According to the Court, such interpretation would render the provisions of Sections 97 and 111 of the Act invalid as it was held in the SC decision in Visitor AMU and Ors. Versus K.S. Misra, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 593 that, it is a well-settled principle of interpretation of the statute that it is incumbent upon the Court to avoid a construction, if reasonably permissible on the language, which will render a part of the statute devoid of any meaning or application.

The Court stated that there is no material on record to prima facie suggest that the Occupier or Manager are in any manner responsible for the unfortunate accident and Sections 97 and 111 have been ignored by the Inspector of the Factories while submitting the report and at the time of filing the complaint.

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in the complaint case was quashed.

The Court allowed the petition.

Cause Title: Deepak Dokania v. State of Jharkhand 

Appearance:

Appellant: Adv. Salona Mittal