Sanjay Agrawal S/o Parmeshwar Das Agrawal Occ. M/s Shyam Ispat India Private Ltd v. 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Deptt Of Industries Health And Safty Mantralay
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.04.16 16:53:28 +0530 2025:CGHC:16871 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 55 of 2013 Sanjay Agrawal S/o Parmeshwar Das Agrawal Occ. M/s Shyam Ispat India Private Ltd., Vill Taraimal, S Punjipathra, Distt Raigarh,c G, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Deptt Of Industries Health And Safty Mantralay Naya Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2. The Director Indusial Health And Safty, Raipur, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Asstt Director Indusial Health And Safty, Raigarh, Distt Raigarh, Cg, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPL No. 56 of 2013 Sanjay Agrawal S/o Parmeshwar Das Agrawal Occ. M/s Shyam Ispat India Private Ltd., Vill Taraimal, S Punjipathra, Distt Raigarh,c G, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors S/o Through The Secretary, Deptt Of Industries Health And Safty Mantralay Naya Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2. The Director Indusial Health And Safty, Raipur, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Asstt Director Indusial Health And Safty, Raigarh, Distt Raigarh, Cg, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh with WPL No. 57 of 2013 --- Respondent(s) Sanjay Agrawal S/o Parmeshwar Das Agrawal Occ. M/s Shyam Ispat India Private Ltd., Vill Taraimal, S Punjipathra, Distt Raigarh,c G, Chhattisgarh 2 Versus ---Petitioner(s) 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Ths Secretary, Deptt Of Industries Health And Safty, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur,c G, Chhattisgarh 2. The Director Indusial Health And Safty, Raipur, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Asstt Director Indusial Health And Safty, Raigarh, Distt Raigarh, Cg, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Suman Keshari, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11. 04.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Bench Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal Nos. 02/CGIR Act/IV/2012, 04/CGIR Act/IV/2012, and 06/CGIR Act/IV/2012 dated 23.03.2013, whereby, the appeals preferred by the State/respondents were allowed and the amount of penalty was enhanced from Rs. 8,000/- to 1,00,000/- in each case. 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a company styled as M/s Shyam Ispat (India) Private Limited. The In-charge, Deputy Director, Industrial Health & Safety and Factory Inspector, Raigarh filed complaint cases before the learned Labour Court against the violation of certain provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short “Act, 1948”). The allegations against the petitioner were that due to contravention of the safety measures, Prem Lal Tirkey, and Ashok Tandon died on 20.10.2011, 16.11.2011 respectively. 3. The learned Labour Court passed separate orders on 28.02.2018 and 3 imposed the penalty of Rs. 8,000/- according to the provisions of Section 92 of the Act, 1948 in each case against the petitioner. 4. The respondents/State preferred appeals against the orders passed in the above-stated cases before the learned Industrial Court. The Industrial Court according to the provisions of Section 92 of the Act, 1948 enhanced the amount of penalty from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- in each case. The petitioner has challenged the common order passed in three appeals dated 23.03.2013 by filing three separate writ petitions. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the learned Industrial Court failed to assign sufficient reasons for enhancement of the penalty from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. He would further submit that in the absence of reasons, the orders passed by the learned Industrial Court are not sustainable in the eyes of the law. He would pray to set-aside those orders. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Government Advocate would oppose. She would submit that according to the provisions of Section 92 of the Act, 1948, the amount of penalty/fine may extend to Rs. 1,00,000/-. She would further submit that two workmen lost their lives; therefore, the learned Industrial Court rightly enhanced the amount of penalty from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. She would also submit that the learned Industrial Court has assigned sufficient reasons. She would contend that these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 8. Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 deals with General penalty for offences and the same is reproduced here-in-below:- “92. General penalty for offences. - Save as is otherwise 4 expressly provided in this Act and subject to the provisions of section 93, if in, or in respect of, any factory there is any contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rules made thereunder or of any order in writing given thereunder the occupier and manager of the factory shall each be guilty of an offence and punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to "[two years] or with fine which may extend to "[one lakh rupees) or with both, and if the contravention is continued after conviction, with a further fine which may extend to "[one thousand rupees] for each day on which the contravention is so continued. [Provided that where contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter IV or any rule made thereunder or under section 87 has resulted in an accident causing death or serious bodily injury, the fine shall not be less than "[twenty-five thousand rupees] in the case of an accident causing death, and five thousand rupees) in the case of an accident causing serious bodily injury. Explanation. In this section and in section 94 "serious bodily injury" means an injury which involves, or in all probability will involve, the permanent loss of the use of, or perma nent injury to, any limb or the permanent loss of, or injury to, sight or hearing, or the fracture of any bone, but shall not include, the fracture of a bone or joint (not being fracture of more than one bone or joint) of any phalanges of hand or foot.] 9. A bare reading of Section 92 of the Act, 1948 would make it clear that if in a factory there is a contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or of any rules or of any order, the occupier and manager of the factory will be guilty of an offence and may be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to "[two years] or with fine which may extend to "[one lakh rupees) or with both. 10. The penal provision with regard to imprisonment or fine is discretionary. The Court may punish with imprisonment such person for the contravention of any of the provisions of the Act, and at the same time, impose the penalty. 5 11. In the present case, the learned Labour Court while exercising the power under Section 92 of the Act,1948 also considered the provisions of Section 29 of CrPC and imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,000/- only. 12. The learned Industrial Court while interpreting Section 92 of the Act, 1948, recorded a clear finding that the learned Labour Court committed an error of law by not imposing the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-, whereas two workmen lost their lives. 13. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned Industrial Court, in my opinion, the orders passed by the learned Industrial Court do not require any interference by this Court. Consequently, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant