1. These petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as common questions of law arise in all these matters.
2. The petitioner in each of the petitions is the Executive Director of the National Organic Chemical Industries, Ltd. (for short, NOCIL). In the complaint he is described as the occupier of the factory. Respondent 1 has filed complaints which are pending against the petitioner in the Court of the First Judicial Magistrate, Thane. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Ss. 18(1), 18(3), 18(2) and 19(4) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, read with rules 27(1), 27(2), 22 and 28 of the Maharashtra Minimum Wages Rules, 1963, Apart from the petitioner the contractor was also joined as an accused.
3. In the complaint, the complainant has alleged that NOCIL had violated the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as also the provisions of the Maharashtra Minimum Wages Rules, 1953, by not maintaining registers in respect of the employees engaged through contractor to do work in the establishment. It was the contention of the complainant that the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, is applicable, as the establishment engages labour to do work which is classified as scheduled employment under the said Act. The learned Magistrate by order, dated October 10, 1995, has convicted accused 1, the contractor on his plea of guilt for offences punishable under Ss. 18(1), 18(3), 18(2) and 19(4) of the Minimum Wages Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 150 on each count respectively. The Court further has directed the case to proceed against accused 2 and 3. Petitioner who is the original accused 2 has challenged the respective order in each complaint.
4. It is the contention of the petitioner herein that the National Organic Chemical Industries, Ltd., engages contract labour through contractor as per the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The obligation to maintain the records and registers in terms of the rules framed in respect of contract labour is of the contractor who is the employer of the contract workers and not NOCIL and that the first respondent, the Inspector under Minimum Wages Act erroneously charged the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is on these grounds that the petitioner has approached this Court to quash the proceedings against him. At any rate the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not Manager of the factory and in fact has been described as occupier in the complaint and the complaint should be rejected on that count also.
5. Developing his first argument the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner contends that under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, in case where contract labour is engaged, it is the contractor who has to maintain the record/registers. It is further contended that a perusal of the definition of employer in S. 2, Cl.(e) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, will lead to such a conclusion. It is then contended that under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, in terms of the rules framed thereunder and more particularly rule 59 all the registers mentioned therein have to be maintained by the contractor. The registers and records to be maintained are the same as to be maintained under the Minimum Wages Act and the rules framed thereunder. Counsel contends, that once the Minimum Wages Act requires that those registers are to be maintained by the contractor then in that event the same are deemed to be registers/records for the purpose of the rules framed under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The learned counsel further contends that this will indicate that it is the contractor who has to maintain the registers/records as he is the employer and under S. 29 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, every principal employer and every contractor shall maintain such registers/records giving such particulars of contract labour employed, etc. Under S. 30 of the said Act the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law or in the terms of any agreement or contract of service, or in any Standing Orders applicable to the establishment whether made before or after the commencement of the Act. It is, therefore, contended that looking to the scheme framed it is the contractor who has to maintain the registers/records in so far as contract workers are concerned and there is no duty cast on the employer under the Minimum Wages Act.
6. It is secondly contended that at any rate under S. 2(e) of the Minimum Wages Act employer in so far as the factory is concerned, is any person named under Cl.(f) of Sub-sec.(1) of S. 7 of the Factories Act, as Manager of the factory. In the instant case the petitioner is not the Manager of the factory and consequently the complaint in so far as the petitioner is concerned ought to be quashed as the petitioner in the complaint is described not as Manager but occupier. The learned counsel has produced some correspondence forwarded to the Director, Industrial Safety and Health, Thane, to show that in the information forwarded under the Factories Act the petitioner is shown as occupier. The learned counsel contends that this material though not produced before the Magistrate should be taken on record as these are public documents and the compliant against the petitioner should be dismissed quashing the process.
7. In support of the first proposition the learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1958 — L.L.J 252], and In re: Polisetti Lakshmayya [1959 — L.L.J 556]. The learned counsel relied on Bhalchandra Keshav Gadre v. Gurushant Gangadhar Kamble, a judgment of a Single Judge of this Court in [1989 E.L.T 617], for the proposition that this Court could consider public documents not available before the Magistrate when it issued process.
8. The first question involved in all these petitions, therefore, is whether NOCIL who has engaged workers through a contractor is the employer and is bound to maintain the records and registers as required under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and the Maharashtra Minimum Wages Rules, 1963, or is it the contractor alone who is bound to maintain the records and registers.
9. A look at the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Minimum Wages Act and the Maharashtra Minimum Wages Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Minimum Wages Rules), will be of considerable assistance in deciding the issue raised in these petitions. Section 2(e) of the Minimum Wages Act defines an “employer.” The definition reads as under:
“‘employer’ means any person who employs, whether directly or through another person, or whether on behalf of himself or any other person, one or more employees in any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, and includes except in Sub-sec.(3) of S. 26—
(i) in a factory where there is carried on any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rate of wages have been fixed under this Act, any person named under Cl.(f) of S. 7 of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), as Manager of the factory;
(ii) in any scheduled employment under the control of any Government in India in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, the person or authority appointed by such Government for the supervision and control of employees or where no person or authority is so appointed, the head of the department;
(iii) in any scheduled employment under any local authority in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, the person appointed by such authority for the supervision and control of employees or where no person is so appointed, the Chief Executive Officer of the local authority;
(iv) in any other case where there is carried on any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, any person responsible to the owner for the supervision and control of the employees or for the payment of wages.’
Therefore, “employer” under the minimum wages is the person who employs, whether directly or through another person whether on behalf of himself or any other person. The complaint qua the petition is filed under Ss. 18 and 19 of the Minimum Wages Act, read with rules 22, 27 and 28. Section 18 is the section pertaining to maintenance of registers and records. Section 19(4) is the power conferred on the Inspector to call any person to produce any document. Rule 27 is the form of registers and records to be maintained. Under rule 28 an employer is bound to maintain is a bound inspection book. Rule 22 pertains to issuance of notice and publication of minimum wages fixed under the Act. The responsibility under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and the Minimum Wages Rules is on the employer.
10. A perusal of the definition of employee also will be relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue in question. Employee is defined as under:
“2(j) ‘employee’ means any person who is employed for hire or reward to do any work, skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical, in a scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed; and includes an out worker to whom any articles or materials are given out by another person, to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, furnished, repaired, adapted or otherwise processed for sale for the purposes of the trade or business of that other person when the process is to be carried out either in the home of the out-worker or in some other premises not being premises under the control and management of that other person; and includes for the purposes of Ss. 20, 21, 22, 22-A, 22-B, 22-C and 22-D any person who has been an employee and who has ceased to be so by reason of superannuation, retirement, dismissal, removal, discharge, termination of service, or otherwise howsoever, and also includes an employee declared to be an employee by the appropriate Government; but does not include any member of the armed force of the union.”
Therefore, employee includes a person who may not be working in the establishment.
11. The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, has been enacted for the purpose of regulation and abolition of contract labour in the establishments covered under the said Act. The said Act hereto shall be referred to as the Contract Labour Act. In so far as the Act is concerned, it contemplates a principal employer who is defined under S. 2(g) and the contractor as defined under S. 2(c) of the Act. Under S. 21 of the Act, the duty to pay wages of the contract workers in the first instance is on the contractor. The said section also provides that every principal employer shall nominate a representative duly authorised by him to be present at the time of disbursement of the wages by the contractor and it shall be the duty of such representative to certify the amounts paid as wages in such manner as may be prescribed by the Act. A duty is cast on the contractor to disburse the wages in the presence of the authorised representative of the principal employer. Sub-sec.(4) of S. 21 provides that in case the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period or makes short payment then the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in full or the unpaid balance due, as the case may be, to the contract labour employed by the contractor and recover the amount so paid from the contractor either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor.
12. Rules have been framed by the Government of Maharashtra under the said Act. The said rules are known as the Maharashtra Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1971, hereto referred to as the Contract Labour Rules. Rules 55 to 64 provide for the maintenance of registers and records and collection of statistics. Rule 55 requires every principal employer to maintain in respect of each registered establishment a register of contractors in Form No. VII. Rules 56, 57 and 58 are in respect of register of persons employed, employment card and service certificate issued by the contractor. All these rules cast a duty on the contractor and not on the principal employer. Rule 59 provides that in respect of establishments which are governed by the Payment of Wages Act and Rules framed thereunder, the registers and records as specified from (a) to (f) in the rule, which are required to be maintained by the contractor as employer under the said Act and Rules framed thereunder shall be deemed to be registers and records maintained by the contractor under these rules, i.e, the Contract Labour Rules. Rule 60 requires the Act and Rules to be displayed in English, Hindi or Marathi in such form as approved by the Commissioner of Labour. Rule 61 requires that all registers required to be maintained under the Act and Rules unless otherwise provided for, shall be kept at an office or the nearest convenient building within the precincts of the workplace or at a place within radius of three kilometers. There are some other rules including submission of return under rule 63 by the contractor. Consideration of the above rules would show that most of the registers and records have to be maintained by the contractor save and except under rule 55, rules 62(2) and 63(3).
13. From a reading of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and the Minimum Wages Act it can be seen that the Contract Labour Act provides for and/or differentiates between a principal employer and a contractor. There is apparently no such distinction in the Minimum Wages Act from a reading of the provisions of the Act. In so far as the Minimum Wages Act is concerned the employer is one who employs persons directly or through intermediaries like contractors. By virtue of Rule 59 of the Contract Labour Rules, if the contractor has maintained registers under the Minimum Wages Act and Rules which he is bound to maintain the registers are deemed to be maintained for the purpose of the Contract Labour Rules. Section 27 of the Contract Labour Act requires the principal employer and the contractor to maintain such records or registers as prescribed. The rules framed provide which are the records or registers that have to be maintained by the principal employer and contractor respectively.
14. Section 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act casts a duty on the principal employer to nominate a representative at the time of disbursement of wages by the contractor to its employees. Similarly, a duty is cast on the contractor to disburse the wages only in the presence of the authorised representative of the principal employer. Sub-sec.(4) of S. 21 mentions that in case the contractor fails to make payment of wages, the wages have to be paid by the principal employer. The principal employer in order to engage contract labour under the Act must apply for the registration under S. 7 if he wants to engage contract labour. In respect of the rest rooms, canteen, latrine, washing facilities and other facilities they have to be in the first instance provided by the contractor. In the event the contract fails to provide the same, the same have to be provided by the principal employer. Reading all these provision would show that even though no duty in the first instance is cast under the Act and Rules on the principal employer to maintain registers as required from rule 56 onwards, nevertheless to give effect to the provisions of S. 21 such information must be available with the principal employer so as to effect the payment of wages and salaries in case the contractor commits defaults in making payment.
15. From this background let us now test the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner that if employees are engaged by a contractor in an establishment then the employer in that case is the Contractor for the purpose of the Minimum Wages Act. First and foremost the Minimum Wages Act and the Rules framed thereunder is a legislation enacted in the year 1948. The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act is a legislation enacted in the year 1970. Therefore, the fact that the Contract Labour Act has been enacted can be of no assistance in interpreting the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, unless there are any specific provisions in the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, which would result in affecting the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. The two Acts though beneficial legislations operate in different fields. The Minimum Wages Act is an Act to fix minimum rate of wage, etc., in scheduled employments whereas the Contract Labour Act is an Act to regulate employment of contract labour in certain establishments and to provide for its abolition in certain circumstances.
16. There is no dispute that the contractor is bound to maintain the registers in the instant case. The question is whether the employer would include “NOCIL.”
17. The question that first requires determination is whether the definition of “employer” is inclusive or exhaustive. The word includes can be a word of extension or it could be exhaustive of the definition and that depends on the context of each case. The Apex Court in the case of South Gujarat Roofing Tiles Manufacturers Association v. State of Gujarat [1977 (1) L.L.N 1] considered the provisions of S. 27 and Schedule Part I, entry 22 of the Minimum Wages Act wherein the word “includes” came up for consideration and held as under, in Para. 3, at page 3:
“… it is true that ‘includes’ is generally used as a word of extension, but the meaning of a word or phrase is extended when it is said to include things that would not properly fall within its ordinary connotation. We may refer to the often quoted observation of Lord Watson in. Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps [1899 AC. 105 and 106], that when the word ‘include’ is used in interpretation clauses to enlarge the meaning or words of phrases in the statute:
‘these words or phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only such things as they signify according to their natural import but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include.’
Thus where ‘includes’ has an extending force, it adds to the word or phrase a meaning which does not naturally belong to it.”
Thereafter the Apex Court observed as under, in Para. 5, at page 5:
“… But the word ‘includes’ is susceptible of another construction, which may become imperative, if the context of the Act is sufficient to show that it was not merely employed for the purpose of adding to the natural significance of the words or expression defined. It may be equivalent to ‘mean and include’ and in that case it may afford an exhaustive explanation of the meaning which, for the purpose of the Act, must invariably be attached to these words or expressions.”
Considering the above test, it can be seen that the word includes is used as a word of extension or is exhaustive of the meaning. In so far as the definition of employer is concerned in the Minimum Wages Act there can be no doubt that the word is “inclusive” as “person” who otherwise would not be “employer,” is included within the definition of “employer” under the Act. For example Cl.(iv) of Sub-sec.(e) of S. 4 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, reads as follows:
“(iv) in any other case where there is carried on any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, any person responsible to the owner for the supervision and control of the employees or for the payment of wages.”
(emphasis supplied.)
A reading of the definition of employer as a person who employs on behalf of any other person read with Cl.(iv) of the definition will also include a contractor. Further as normally understood the employer for the contract workers would be the contractor as there exists a relationship of master and servant between them, but the inclusive definition of the word employer in the definition clause of Minimum Wages Act also brings in the person who employs through another person. Therefore, the person who engages workers through another like a contractor would also be employer for the purpose of the definition under the Minimum Wages Act.
18. Does the Act, therefore, contemplate two employers for the same contract workers in the factory and/or establishment within the meaning of the definition of employer under the Minimum Wages Act at the same time. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that if one reads the provisions of S. 29 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the principal employer and contractor have to maintain such records and registers giving such particulars of contract labour employed. It is then pointed out that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law, etc. A reading of S. 29 of the Act with the rules would show that the registers to be maintained by the principal employer are different from the registers to be maintained by the contractor. Rule 59 of the Contract Labour Rules makes it clear that if the contractor has to maintain the registers and records under the Minimum Wages Act then that will suffice for the purpose of the Contract Labour Act. In other words it is explicit that the contractor even under the Minimum Wages Act has to maintain the registers on a true reading of rule 59. This, however, at the highest can mean that on coming into force of the Contract Labour Act, the contractor if he maintains the registers which he is bound to maintain under the Minimum Wages Act, to the extent that they have to be maintained and under the Contract Labour Act is dispensed from the requirement of keeping a second set of registers, if he maintains such registers under the Minimum Wages Act. This is no way alters the definition of employer under the Minimum Wages Act, nor does it dispense with the requirement of the person who engages the contract labour through another from maintaining the registers and records. There is also no other provision in the Contract Labour Act which overrides the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act in this respect. Section 30 of the Contract Labour Act provides that the provisions of the Contract Labour Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything in consistent in any other Act. As already pointed out the scheme of the two Acts is different.
19. In support of this proposition learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Polisetti Lakshmayya (vide supra). In that case the petitioner was working stone quarries and he had failed to maintain the registers under the Minimum Wages Act. The plea of the petitioner was that he was not working the quarries but he employed contractors to operate the quarries. The trial Court on the facts rejected the contention of the petitioner in that case and came to the conclusion that the contractors are employees and the petitioner is an employer. It is against that order that the petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh (vide supra), and on facts came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not the employer, and the contractor was the employer and as such there was no obligation to maintain registers and records as contemplated by S. 18 of the Act. The judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is, therefore, clearly distinguished.
20. Let me advert to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh (vide supra), relied upon by the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court. The Apex Court was considering the question whether in dependent contractors known as sattedars were independent contractor or workmen within the meaning of S. 2(1) of the Factories Act. The relevant facts were that the owner of factory entered into a contract with independent contractor known as sattedars for the supply of bidis. The management supplied tobacco to the sattedars and in some cases bidi leaves. Some of the sattedars maintained a small factory where they got bidis manufactured by engaging coolies. Others gave tobacco and bidi leaves to outsiders who prepare bidis in their houses. After bidis were rolled in, the sattedars collected the bidis so manufactured and took them to the factory directly or through coolies where they were sorted and checked by the workers in the factory. The selected or approved bidis were then separately packed in bundles of ten and twenty-five and taken by the sattedars or the coolies in gauze trays to tandul and left there. The rejected bidis, commonly known as chhant, were again rebundled by the sattedars and delivered to the factory. The management paid the sattedars the cost of the manufacture of bidis after deducting therefrom the cost of tobacco supplied by to them. From the facts on record the Apex Court came to the conclusion that the sattedar is only a contractor, who undertakes a specific job of work, i.e, supply of bidis directly or indirectly through his coolies, by manufacturing them either in his own factory or by entrusting the work to third parties, at a price to be paid by the management after delivery and approval and the management had no control over the working of the employees of the contractor. It was on those facts that the Apex Court came to the conclusion that the person employed by the sattedar and/or the sattedars themselves were not workmen. The Apex Court's conclusions were based on the facts before them and as no attempt had been made by the prosecution to establish that the sattedars were employed by the management for doing the work in the factory. The uncontradicted evidence was that they were independent contractors who came to the factory to deliver the bidis or sent their coolies to do the same. For the sake of repetition what the Apex Court was considering was whether the sattedars or workmen employed by them were under the control of the management in so far as the work is concerned to hold that there was no control or supervision.
21. Before the Andhra Pradesh High Court what was under consideration was the definition of employer under the Minimum Wages Act. The learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the facts before him came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove that Polisetti Lakshmayya was the employer within the meaning of the definition of employer under the Minimum Wages Act relying on the test laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Chintaman Rao. The reliance, therefore, placed on the judgment of the Andra Pradesh High Court is misplaced.
22. In the instant case prima facie the contractors have employed persons to do work in the establishment. In other words employees are engaged by the contractor to do the work in connection with the establishment. It is true that they are engaged by contractor, but in so far as the definition of employer under the Minimum Wages Act is concerned, it includes any person who employs whether directly or through another person or whether on behalf of himself or any other person, one or more employees in any scheduled employment respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act. By virtue of the definition of employee, workers working outside the establishment either at home or even in some other premises not under the control and management of the other persons are included within the definition of employees. The objective is whether he directly employs or though another as along as the employment is scheduled and the work has connection with the establishment/factory, etc., the employer is required to pay minimum wages fixed by law, fix the days and hours of work, intervals of work, day of rest for every seven days, payment for rest day, overtime wages, etc., so as to provide uniformity in the establishment or work connected with the establishment.
23. A conjoint reading of the definition of employer and employee under the Minimum Wages Act, therefore, makes it clear that every employer, including a contractor who engages labourers for others who owns the establishment/factory, etc., is bound by the provisions of the Act, to comply with the requirement of maintaining registers, etc. No other view is possible.
24. Even otherwise it would be difficult to accept the proposition canvassed on behalf of the petitioners based on the Contract Labour Act. A duty is cast on the principal employer under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. In case the contractor fails to pay wages, etc., how would the principal employer without having the records and registers discharge the obligations of the contractors. The argument sought to be advanced is that rules 29 of the Contract Labour Rules gives an indication that the contractor has to maintain register/records under the Minimum Wages Act. Even if this argument is accepted on reading the provisions of Rule 59 of the Contract Labour Rules and S. 30 of the Contract Labour Act all that can be said is that if a contractor maintains the registers/records under the Minimum Wages Act then those would be the registers/records in so far as the Contract Labour Rules are concerned. This therefore is indication or recognition that the contractor also is an employer and he has to maintain registers/records under the Minimum Wages Act. This however would not dispense with the necessity of the owner of the establishment from maintaining the registers/records in so far as the employees are engaged by the contractor. I am, therefore, of the view that the employer has to maintain the register/records. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, has to be rejected.
25. In the present case the complaint has been filed under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and the Minimum Wages Rules. The Minimum Wages Act and the Minimum Wages Rules defines who are the employer. In so far as the said Act is concerned whether labour is engaged by the person directly or through a contractor, the registers, forms and records are required to be maintained by the persons which includes the contractor. In other words there can be more than one employer in respect of the contract workers who have to maintain the registers, forms receipts, etc. Maintenance of records and registers by the contractor under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, will not discharge the employer under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, except the contractor, who is also an employer under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, there is no doubt whatsoever that in the present case NOCIL in So far as the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, is concerned would be the employer along with contractor.
26. That takes us to the last contention that the complaint against the petitioner is not maintainable as he is not the Manager. Counsel has produced certain documents to show that the petitioner herein has been described as occupier and the Manager is some other person. The learned counsel contends that this Court can take note of the said fact as it is a public document and he relied on the judgment in the case of Bhalchandra Keshav Gadre (vide supra). The argument has to be rejected. Under the Minimum Wages Act under S. 22-C(2) in case of offence by the company if it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the company such person is also liable and guilty in respect of the said offence. Similarly under S. 22-C(1) every person who is in charge and responsible to the company shall be liable. In a criminal complaint all that the Court has to examine is whether on facts as pleaded in the complaint and from verification, the facts disclose all the ingredients of the offence in respect of which the complaint has been filed and whether process should be issued. The Court cannot consider any other material except material available before the Magistrate. The judgment in the case of Bhalchandra Keshav Gadre (vide supra), will have to be restricted to the facts of that case, considering the 1 aw for issue of process laid down by the Apex Court. At any rate in the present case the complaint is filed against the petitioner as an Executive Director and occupier, in other words as a person in charge of the factory under the Factories Act. I, therefore, see no reason to quash the proceedings on this count at this stage. The petitioner can furnish evidence before the Magistrate to show that he is not liable.
27. There is therefore, no merits whatsoever in these criminal applications, which are rejected.
28. The operation of this order is stayed for eight weeks from today.