V.S. Selvanathan vs State of Tamil Nadu by the Inspector of Factories, Cuddalore

Suryamurthy, J.—This is a criminal revision case against the conviction and the sentence of fine imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

South Arcot at Cuddalore on the revision petitioner who was prosecuted by the Inspector of Factories, Cuddalore for contravention of S. 6(1)

read with Rules 3 and 4 of the Factories Act and the Rules framed thereunder. On 22nd November, 1975 P.W. 1, who was then the Inspector of

Factories, Cuddalore, inspected the premises of St. Joseph''s Industrial School, Cuddalore, and found therein ten workers, and obtained from

D.W.1, the Manager of the said Industrial School, a statement, Ex.P. 2. A workshop for servicing and repairing automobiles is located in the said

Industrial School. The contention of the revision petitioner is that two of the workers found inside the premises were not workers in the automobile

workshop and servicing shop, but workers in a rice mill. By reason of the provision in S. 103 of the Factories Act, a person found inside a factory

at any time, except during intervals for meals or rest, when work is going on or the machinery is in motion, is deemed for the purpose of the Act

and the Rules made thereunder, to have been at that time employed in the factory, until the contrary is proved. There is no acceptable proof to the

contrary. P.W. 1, found the so called ""workers in rice mill"" also inside the factory during working hours."" Therefore, they should be deemed to

have been working in the Industrial School. If these two are added to the rest of the workers found inside the premises, there were ten persons

inside the premises of the St, Joseph''s Industrial School which is conducting an automobile workshop, and therefore, it is a factory within the

meaning of the Act. The next contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the petitioner is not the occupier. There is no

substance in the contention, because under the Articles of Association, the petitioner is the Director General of the company and has the whole

control and management of the company to the full extent and he is independent of the Board of Directors and free from any control or supervision

by the Board and he could exercise the powers and discretion of the Board of Directors without their consent or concurrence (vide: Ex. D2.) He is

therefore, the occupier within the meaning of the Act. In the circumstances, there is no substance in the contention. The conviction of the revision

petitioner is correct and the sentence of fine of Rs. 50/ under each count is not excessive. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.