SUBIR BOSE v.

INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES

Submitted by:

Names- Shristi Roongta - A90821618010

Payal Mishra - A90821618004
Aritra Nag - A90821618017
Ankita Roy - A90821618016
Rohan Bavishi - A9081261811
Programme- B.Com LLB (H)
Semester-6

Course- Labour Law II

Submitted to:

Prof. Koyel Roy

Amity Law School, Kolkata

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
While preparing our assignment, we had to take the help and guidance of some respected persons,
who deserve our deepest gratitude. As the completion of the assignment gave us much pleasure,
we would like to show our gratitude to Prof. KOYEL ROY, respected faculty, who helped in our
assignment throughout numerous consultations. We would also like to expand our gratitude to all
those who have directly and indirectly guided us in doing this assignment. In addition, a thank you
to Amity Law School (ALS) and our parents and friends for supporting us.

2
 INDEX

Sl.No Topic Page.No

1 Introduction 4
2 Appellant, Respondent and Judges 5
3 Facts of the case 6
4 Issues raised 6
5 Arguments made 7
6 Judgment 7-9
7 Opinion 9
8 Conclusion 10
9 Bibliography 11

3
 INTRODUCTION
Production of goods is an inevitable part of a country or economy. Undoubtedly, if production is
important then everything related to production is important. Hence, Factory forms an important part of
the economy. It is such a wide term that it requires special provisions to carry on all activities smoothly.
"Factory" has been defined under sec 2(m) of The Factories Act, 19481. In general terms ‘Factory’ is
a building or buildings where people use machines to produce goods. The factories act, 1948 were
passed by the constituent assembly on 28th August 1948, the governor-general of India gave his
assent on September 23, 1948, and it came into force on 1st April 1949. It provides safeguards to
health, safety and welfare of workers in the factories as well as protection to the exploited workers to
increase their working conditions in the industries or factories. It will also monitor the owners of the
premises and strict observations will be made concerning factories and other working conditions of
labourers. The Act covers 120 sections, 11 chapters and 3 schedules. The Factories in India is the
most essential element regarding economic development, also it is the duty of the state to safeguard
every citizen of India with health and safety conditions which are a most important notable thing for
the employees in factories. The factories act aimed to safeguard the interest of workers, precautions
and preventions in hazardous works, health and safety in the working zone, to stop their exploitation,
cast obligations towards the employers and managers to protect every employee and protection of
women and children2. The Act extends to the whole of India including Jammu and Kashmir. The Act
applies to every premises which has 10 or more workers in the manufacturing process and powers
also, premises with 20 or more workers in the manufacturing process and no power. The Act which
empowers the state government to declare any of the factories or premises of the Act apply to secure
safety, health and welfare, but it does not include a mine or mobile unit belonging to armed forces of
union, restaurants or hotels. The object of this act is to prevent human beings from working long
hours with bodily strain or manual labour, provide the employees to work in healthy and hygienic
conditions, safeguard the workers from hazardous works and the prevention of accidents, ensure
annual leaves with wages, and to protect women and children in the course of employment.

1The Factories Act, 1948, Sec : 2(m)

2
Factories Act, 1948 – History, Objective & Applicability, available at
https://www.legalbites.in/factories-act-1948#importance last seen on 24/3/2021
4
Subir Bose vs Inspector Of Factories on 24 September, 2019

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1963 /2010

Shri Subir Bose …Appellant

Versus

Inspector of Factories,
represented by S. M. Paranjpe & Anr. …Respondents

JUDGES- INDU MALHOTRA & SANJIV KHANNA

5
FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Mr. Subir Bose, was the Managing Director of M/s. Berger Paints India Ltd. (the
‘Company’ for short) and resident of Kolkata at the time of the offence. On April 28, 2006
at about 11:20 hours fire had broken out at the factory premises of the company located at
IDC Kundaim, Goa. There was no causality except that one Shri Tulsidas Dutta Palkar – a
worker, had sustained minor injuries and was taken to hospital and discharged after
treatment on the same day.

2. On 28th June, 2006, Inspector of Factories, Altinho, Panaji, Goa filed a private complaint
in discharge of official duties under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (“Factories Act”
for short) against the appellant – Managing Director of the Company, as the occupier, and
Shri S.M. Lahiri – the Manager of the Company. The allegations were that the company
had been using the factory premises situated at Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Goa
without proper licence/permission which was in contravention of Goa Factories Rules,
1945. It was also alleged that the accused has failed to take adequate measures to prevent
explosion or ignition of inflammable substances as required under Sections 37 and 38 of
the Factories Act.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the factory situated at Kundaim, Goa had proper licensing/permission under the
Goa Factories Rules, 1945?
2. Whether the company failed to take necessary precautions for explosive and inflammable
substances and were liable as under under 285 and 336 of the IPC?
3. Whether the court was justified in convicting the appellant under section 92 of the
factories Act, without imprisonment?

6
ARGUMENTS MADE:

1. It was contended by the appellant that the allegations made against the factory situated at
Kundaim Industrial Estate, kundaim, Goa, being without proper licensing or permission
was that, the premises were in the process of closure of its operations. Though, the
respondents argued that such a contention made by the appellants was a mere factual
assertion and that it would require to be proven and established.

2. However, on the question whether adequate measures were taken to prevent explosion or
ignition of inflammable substance is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant
referred to some of the merits disclosed in the closure report filed by the Police in the FIR
under Sections 285 and 336 of the IPC registered against Shri S.M. Lahiri – Factory
Manager, Shri Jayanta Bhattacharya – the Production Manager, Shri Bikas Pukait – the
Shift-in-Charge, and Shri Tulsidas Datta Palkar – the worker. The closure report was
based on the opinion of the Additional Public Prosecutor and was accepted by the
Judicial Magistrate (First Class). The incident did not involve any act endangering life or
personal safety of the workers, neither indicated any rash or negligent act. It resulted due
to a mere accident and the negligence was not proved on the part of the respondents.
Thus, the concerned charge sheet filed against the criminal charges was unfit for the case.

JUDGMENT

1. The court held that the Managing Director, Judges was not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order, which has affirmed the order taking cognizance for an offence
under Section 92 of the Factories Act as, prima facie, it does appear that the factory
premises situated at Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Goa was functioning without a
licence/permission. The contention of the appellant that the factory premises was in the

7
 process of closure of its and operations would be a factual assertion made by the defence.
This would require to be proved and established. However, on the question whether
adequate measures were taken to prevent explosion or ignition of inflammable substance
is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to, with some merit, the closure
report filed by the Police in FIR No. 110 of 2006 under Sections 285 and 336 of the IPC
registered against Shri S.M. Lahiri – Factory Manager, Shri Jayanta Bhattacharya – the
Production Manager, Shri Bikas Pukait – the Shift-in-Charge, and Shri Tulsidas Datta
Palkar – the worker. Interestingly, Shri Tulsidas Datta Palkar was the person who had
sustained minor injuries and was taken to hospital and discharged on the same day after
administering first aid. The closure report was filed stating that it was an unfit case for
filing of charge sheet as criminal charges were not made out. The report was based on the
opinion of the Additional Public Prosecutor and was accepted by the Judicial Magistrate
(First Class), Ponda, who is also the Magistrate who has taken cognizance of the offence
under Section 92 of the Factories Act. The complaint refers to violation of Sections
37 and 38 of the Factories Act, albeit without giving specific particulars and details. Hence,
to this extent, the complaint is vague and does not disclose a specific violation.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, has stated that the appellant would
plead guilty and bring the litigation to a quietus by paying the maximum amount of fine
that can be imposed. The prayer made was that punishment of imprisonment may not be
imposed as the appellant is now more than 70 years of age, and at that time the company
had six factories and more than eighty depots all over India. The appellant was at the
relevant time a permanent resident of Kolkata. Relegating the appellant to the trial Court
would not serve any purpose and cause delay.

3. Judges are, in the peculiar facts of the present case, inclined to accept the prayer noticing
the fact that in the present case Shri Tulsidas Datta Palkar – the worker, who was himself,
as per the FIR, one of the accused, had suffered minor injuries and was discharged from
the hospital on the same day. The occurrence relates to the year 2006, the present appellant
is now over 70 years of age, and the trial itself would take years before it is decided. In
these circumstances, in the interests of justice, we accept the appellant’s prayer to accept
his confession of guilt, and, accordingly, convict him under Section 92 of the Factories Act

8
 with Fine of Rs.1,00,000/- which should be deposited with the trial Court within four weeks
from the date of this Judgment. On failure to deposit the Fine, the appellant would undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of eight weeks.

4. The order and directions given hereinabove would dispose of the criminal proceedings
against the appellant in Criminal Case No. 9/LAB/2006/B pending before the Judicial
Magistrate (First Class ‘B’), Ponda, Goa. As this order is passed in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, it is not to be treated as a precedent. The interim Order dated
17.07.2019 passed by this Court stands vacated. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.

OPINION

In the give case of Subir Bose v The Inspector of Factories, we can see and it was even held at
the court that such a judgement may not be taken as a precedent. Here, in the case we could see
that the appellant had confessed to the utmost penalty of the fine amount as he himself was over
the age of 70 yrs and if he was to be imprisoned, the process of the case would be long. In order
to shorten the case, it was agreed that the appellant was to accept his fault, be guilty and in the end
pay the highest amount of fine.
In our opinion, on the other hand if the same would have been done by a person of some other
company and of a younger age, the judgement would have been different. Not only the judgement
would have been different but also, it would have been a landmark judgement where the appellant
would receive not only a fine but also a penalty. The confession would not have been taken place
and it would take a long time to have an outcome of such case. This judgement would be hailed as
equity has been seen in such.

CONCLUSION
9
The Factories Act empowers the state government to declare any of the factories or premises of
the Act apply to secure safety, health and welfare, but it does not include a mine or mobile unit
belonging to armed forces of union, restaurants or hotels. The object of this act is to prevent human
beings from working long hours with bodily strain or manual labour, provide the employees to
work in healthy and hygienic conditions, safeguard the workers from hazardous works and the
prevention of accidents, ensure annual leaves with wages, and to protect women and children in
the course of employment.
Concluding this case, it can be seen that for the appellant and with the number of cases in the court,
with the confession of the appellant the judgement came out early and fast. But as it is known that
a coin has two sides, on the other hand, for the affected justice was not served properly as even
though the person was aged, there is an equality amongst all wherein, he should have been
imprisoned and fined other than just being fined for the case.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

10
WEBSITES:
• https://www.legalbites.in/factories-act-1948#importance
• https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/shri-subir-bose-versus-inspector-of-
factories-represented-by-s-m-paranjpe-anr
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186585831/

ARTICLES:
• Factories Act, 1948 – History, Objective & Applicability.

11