“Legal Triumph: High Court Ruling Ends Criminal Proceedings against the Director in Workplace Injury Case"
Deepak Dokania v. The State of Jharkhand Crl M P 742/2014 Before the Jharkhand High Court Heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi J Order: The Court observed that there was insufficient evidence to suggest the management's responsibility for the accident. It pointed out that relevant sections of the Factory Act pertaining to worker obligations were not considered by the Inspector. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Seraikella. The present case relates to an accident with the worker in the Factory BMC Metal Cast Pvt Ltd, situated at Adityapur Industrial Area at Seraikella Kharsawa, and the Petitioner-Deepak Dokania was the Director at the relevant time. Facts 1. The employee Tunna Tin met with an accident in September 2013 while changing a damaged sheet on the roof when safety bent came down on the ground and being unstable he got injured. 2. On receiving the accident information, the Factory Inspector inspected the factory premises on 24.9.2013 to find out the reasons for accident. 3. Bharat Shyamal, the Supervisor of the factory narrated the incident to the Factory Inspector & his statement was recorded. Case of the Prosecution 4. The employee had started his duty on 23.9.2013 at 8.00 am and it was found that the management had not provided safety due to a lack of safety measures the victim sustained injury and the management failed to comply with the provisions of section 32(B) and 32(C) of the Factory Act, 1948 and Rule 56(c)(a) of Jharkhand Factory Rule, 1950. 5. When the Factory Inspector enquired about the accident the management did not produce any record as such the management violated the provision of Rule 102 of Factory Rules, 1950. Submission of the Counsel of the petitioner 6. In the inquiry report the worker has admitted before the Factory Inspector that he was provided with safety equipment like a belt and helmet. 7. In spite of the admission of the Worker, the case has been lodged. Submission of the Counsel of the State 8. The accident occurred in the factory premises and was found to be true as such a case has been lodged, cognizance was taken and there is no illegality in the order of cognizance. Observation of the Court 9. On perusal of the complaint, it transpires that there is no material on the record to prima facie suggest that the Occupier or Manager was in any manner responsible for the unfortunate accident. 10. Sections 97 and 111 were not looked into by the Inspector, as admitted in the complaint itself that the workman concern has gone to the roof. 11. No case is made out against the petitioners in terms of the Factories Act. 12. The word “cognizance” has been put in the blank space which suggests that there is non-application of judicial mind.
