Hemant Madhusudan Nerurkar Vs State of Jharkhand & Anr, on 4th May 2016, Supreme Court of India: Case Brief – Read Judgement

data-matched-content-ui-type="image_card_sidebyside" data-matched-content-rows-num="1" data-matched-content-columns-num="4"

Even though the accused have removed all defects from his factor, but punishment under the Factories Act, 1948 were awarded against them by Apex Court

Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 2016
Bench: Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar; Justice C. Nagappan

Case Brief: In the present case, the appeals are brought by the appellants in connection with the controversy arising for the adjudication has emerged from the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 and the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950. The issue in challenge is the alleged violation of the said rules by the appellants being occupier and manager of the Growth Shop of M/s. Tata Steel Limited. The challenge is brought against the decision of High court, where appellants’ prayer for quashing the proceedings against them, was rejected. This Court has earlier in the year 2015 directed the Inspector to verify the factory premises and find out the whether the defects pointed out by him have been rectified or not. The purpose behind this order was to ensure the violation, if any to be rectified and for the reason also that the Appellants have earlier asserted that they needed to have been afforded an opportunity for curing the defects and irregularities found during the course of first inspection. Thereafter, the appellants again appear and contended that except two defects as to labour contracts, all the other defects pertaining to infrastructure have been removed. The burden in connection with the said two defects, as per Appellants, lies with the Contractor. Moreover, thereafter the said two defects were also removed in coming dates.

data-matched-content-ui-type="image_card_sidebyside" data-matched-content-rows-num="1" data-matched-content-columns-num="4"

The basic question which was arose before this bench, that whether the appellants could still be punished under section 92 of the Act. This bench as such considered the provision of section 92 and then the purpose for which the Act was enacted and after analysing the same, it came to be conclusion that the impugned order passed by the High Court cannot be disturbed. This bench later again, after considering the allegations levelled against the appellants observed satisfactorily that in terms of the mandate of section and in ends of justice, the penalty of Rs. 50,000 each is to be imposed on the appellants. And with such order, the bench decided to dispose of the criminal proceedings against appellants which are also pending before Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As such the appeals are disposed of by this bench.

data-matched-content-ui-type="image_card_sidebyside" data-matched-content-rows-num="4" data-matched-content-columns-num="4"

Read the Judgment: Hemant Madhusudan Nerurkar Vs State of Jharkhand & Anr

Leave a Reply