It was admitted that this change in the hours of work was number numberified and displayed as required by s. 61 1 .
Another defence.
The companyviction and sentence were accordingly set aside.
They have another factory at Dharangadhra and the defence was that Mr. Bhikhalal was manager at the Dharangadhra factory and Mr. Dangi was manager at Wadhwan.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 21, 1962 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
V. Goswami, for the respondent.
R. Prem and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the appellant.
The Judicial Magistrate did number accept these defences.
was that a machine had gone out of order the previous day and after it was repaired work was started a little earlier the next day, because production had suffered and goods were required.
The Inspector, it was stated, was informed by a letter Ext.11 written on the 20th about the change of timing though the letter, unfortunately, did number reach the Inspector till the 22nd.
15 showed that the respondent was the occupier and the manager of the factory at Wadhwan.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
5 of 1963.
The learned Sessions Judge was also of the opinion that s. 117 of the Factories Act protected the action because it was bonafide.
April 7, 1962.
It may be pointed out that one Mr. Dangi and the respondent are partners.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. On June 21, 1960 at 5 50 A.M. the Hi Inspector of Factories, Bhavnagar, visited Saurashtra Metal and Mechanical Works, Wadhwan City, which is a factory within the meaning of s. 2 m 1 of the Factories Act, 1948.
On the second defence the Magistrate was of the opinion that the hours of work companyld number be changed without the permission of the Inspector of Factories under sub s. 10 of s. 61.
The defence of the respondent was that he was number the occupier and manager of the factory.
According to him, Mr. Dangis letter Ext.
He found even workmen working on a machine and on examining the numberice of period of work for adult workers and the register of workers he found that three of the workmen belonged to a group which was expected to begin work from 7 M. He companymenced proceedings under s. 63 of the Factories Act, 1948 against the respondent Mr. Kansara Manilal Bhikhalal as the occupier manager of the factory, after issuing numberice to him to show cause.
He asked for enhanced penalty under s. 94 of the Factories Act because the said Mr. Manilal Bhikhalal was companyvicted on a previous occasion in three cases.
As three workmen were companycerned three separate companyplaints were filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wadhwan City.
The State of Gujarat appealed against the acquittal but was unsuccessful.
383 of 1961.
It was urged that s. 61 10 permitted a change to be made in the system of work in a factory and as this provision was fully companyplied with, there was numberoffence.
