- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ram Chandra Sharma And Others v. State Of U.P
Factual and Procedural Background
This is a revision application by Ram Chandra Sharma, Brijnandan, Niranjan Lal, Keshav Chandra, Jagdish Prasad and Hoti Lal Das who were convicted under Sec. 92 of the Indian Factories Act, 1948 for breach of Rules 6 and 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Factory Rules, 1950, and each was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50. The applicants are partners in a firm styled "Niranjan Lal Ram Chand" conducting motor-car and motor-parts business with a workshop in Agra. On 27 November 1952 an Inspector of Factories found seventeen adults and a boy employed in power-assisted repair, oiling and painting of motor-cars at the premises. The Inspector found that no application for registration and license, in Form No. 4 with the requisite treasury chalan, had been submitted to the Chief Inspector of Factories as required by Rules 6 and 13. A complaint was filed by the Chief Inspector and the applicants were convicted. They had earlier preferred a revision before the District Magistrate of Agra, which was dismissed on 20 July 1953, and subsequently applied in revision to the court in this opinion.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, given the firm's partnership structure, only Brijnandan Lal (alleged occupier) could be prosecuted under Sec. 92 of the Indian Factories Act, or whether all partners could be held individually liable for breach of Rules 6 and 13 of the U.P. Factory Rules, 1950.
- Whether the fine imposed (Rs. 50 each) was excessive in view of the applicants' asserted ignorance of the provisions of the Factories Act and the Rules, and whether a reduction of sentence was warranted.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicants' Arguments
- Primary ground pressed was that only Brijnandan Lal was the occupier of the factory and therefore solely responsible; the other five partners could not be convicted under Sec. 92 of the Factories Act.
- It was also urged that the breach of the Rules occurred in ignorance of the provisions of the Factories Act and its Rules, and on that basis the fine of Rs. 50 was excessive and should be reduced.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's specific arguments beyond the fact of prosecution and conviction following the Inspector's complaint.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
- The court examined statutory definitions and provisions relied on by the applicants. It noted Sec. 2(n) of the Indian Factories Act, which defines "occupier" as the person with ultimate control over the affairs of the factory, and that where affairs are entrusted to a managing agent, such agent shall be deemed occupier.
- The court then considered Sec. 100 of the Indian Factories Act. That section provides that when the occupier is a firm or association of individuals, any one of the individual partners or members may be prosecuted and punished under the relevant chapter for offences for which the occupier is punishable. Sec. 100 further permits a firm to notify the Inspector of a nominated individual partner (residing within the Province) as the occupier for the purposes of the Chapter; in the absence of such a notice, partners remain individually liable.
- Applying these provisions to the facts, the court observed that the firm in this case did not give any notice to the Inspector nominating Brijnandan Lal as the occupier for Chapter X purposes. Consequently, the statutory scheme in Sec. 100 meant that all partners could be prosecuted individually for offences committed by the occupier (the firm).
- On that basis the court rejected the applicants' contention that only Brijnandan Lal could be deemed occupier and liable; the other five partners could properly be prosecuted under Sec. 92 because no nomination under Sec. 100 had been effected.
- Regarding sentence, the court accepted that the breach occurred in ignorance of the Act and Rules and considered that a reduction of the fine would meet the ends of justice. The court accordingly reduced each fine from Rs. 50 to Rs. 20 while maintaining the convictions.
Holding and Implications
The court allowed the revision in part: the convictions under Sec. 92 of the Indian Factories Act for breach of Rules 6 and 13 of the U.P. Factory Rules, 1950 were maintained, but the sentence in each case was reduced from Rs. 50 to Rs. 20.
Implications:
- Direct effect: All six partners remain convicted under Sec. 92 for breach of Rules 6 and 13; each partner's fine is reduced to Rs. 20.
- Reasoning relied on statutory interpretation of Sec. 2(n) and Sec. 100 of the Indian Factories Act; the decision rests on the absence of any formal nomination by the firm under Sec. 100. The opinion does not state or claim to establish any broader legal precedent beyond the application of those statutory provisions to the facts of this case.
Roy, J.:— This is an application in revision by Ram Chandra Sharma, Brijnandan, Niranjan Lal, Keshav Chandra, Jagdish Prasad and Hoti Lal Das who have been convicted under Sec. 92 of the Indian Factories Act, 1948, for the breach of Rules 6 and 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Factories Rules, 1950, framed under Sec. 6 of the Act, and each of whom has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50. A revision had been preferred by them before the learned District Magistrate of Agra, but it was dismissed on the 20th of July, 1953.
2. The applicants are partners of a firm styled as Niranjan Lal Ram Chand which deals in motor-cars and motor parts in Agra. The firm had a workshop in Agra. On the 27th of November, 1952, the Inspector of Factories visited this factory and found that inside the premises seventeen adults and a boy were employed in carrying out repairs, oiling, painting, etc. of motor-cars with the aid of power.
3. He further found that no application had been made to the Chief Inspector of Factories, Uttar Pradesh, along with Treasury Chalan in Form No. 4 for registration and grant of license, as was required under Rules 6 and 13 of the U.P Factory Rules of 1950. The breach of the Rules was reported to the Chief Inspector of Factories who filed a complaint and on that complaint the applicants were convicted and sentenced in the manner stated above.
4. The only ground which has been pressed before me by learned counsel for the applicants is that it was Brijnandan Lal alone who was the occupier of the Factory and was, therefore, responsible for the breach and that therefore the other five applicants could not have been convicted under Sec. 92 of the Factories Act. It is not disputed that the Firm is styled as Niranjan Lal Ram Chand. It is further not disputed that all the six applicants are the partners of this firm. Rule 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Factory Rules, 1950, provides that the occupier of every factory shall submit to the Chief Inspector an application together with Form 4 prescribed under Sec. 7 for the registration of the Factory and grant of a license, at least fifteen days before he begins to occupy or use the premises as a Factory; provided that the occupier of the premises in use as a factory on the date of the enforcement of this Rule shall submit such application within thirty days. Rule 13 of the same Rules provides that every application shall be accompanied by a treasury receipt showing that the appropriate fee has been paid. It is not disputed that there was a breach of both these Rules. It has been contended on behalf of the applicants that since Sec. 2(n) of the Indian Factories Act says that “occupier” of a Factory means the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the Factory and where the said affairs are entrusted to a managing agent, such agent shall be deemed to be the occupier of the factory, it was only Brijnandan Lal who should be deemed to be the occupier of the Factory and not the rest. This interpretation cannot, however, be put to the word “occupier” qua the other five applicants. This would be clear enough from the provisions of Sec. 100 of the Indian Factories Act. That section says that where the occupier of a Factory is a firm or other association of individuals, any one of the individual partners or members thereof may be prosecuted and punished under this Chapter for any offence for which the occupier of the Factory is punishable Provided that the firm or association may give notice to the Inspector that it has nominated one of its members, residing within the Province of India to be the occupier of the factory for the purposes of this Chapter, and such individual shall, so long as he is so resident, be deemed to be the occupier of the factory for the purposes of this Chapter, until further notice cancelling his nomination is received by the Inspector or until he ceases to be a partner or member of the firm or association. Obviously the word “occupier” in Sec. 2(n) of the Act will not include merely an individual. An “occupier” of the factory may be a firm or other association of individuals and any one of the individual partners or members thereof may, in view of Sec. 100 of the Act be prosecuted and punished under this Chapter for any offence for which the occupier of the factory is punishable. In the present case the firm never gave any notice to the Inspector that it has nominated Brijnandan Lal, one of its members, to be the occupier of the factory for the purposes of Chapter X of the Indian Factories Act. In the absence of any such notice, all the partners would be individually liable. Consequently there is no force in the contention that the other five partners, except Brijnandan Lal, could not have been prosecuted under Sec. 92 of the Act which falls under Chapter X of the Act.
5. It has further been urged that since the breach of the Rules was in ignorance of the provisions of the Factories Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the fine imposed is somewhat excessive. In the circumstances of the present case I think the ends of justice would be met with if the fine is reduced to a sum of Rs. 20 in each case. Consequently I allow the application in revision and, while maintaining the conviction of the applicants under Sec. 92 of the Indian Factories Act for breach of Rules 6 and 13 of the U.P Factory Rules of 1950, I reduce the sentence of each of the six applicants to a fine of Rs. 20.
Alert