he also categorically admits that he has number taken the permission of the appellant for starting the said third shift and that it was done without the knumberledge of the appellant.
on the same day he had filed a written statement pleading guilty to the allegations made against him in the cross complaint and expressing regret for having companymitted a breach of the act.
the second respondent bachubhai on the same day in answer to the charge leveled against him by the appellant that he and the third respondent were liable for the breach of provisions of s. 63 of the act for permitting the companycerned workers to work at 3 a.m on may 26 1961 pleaded guilty before the magistrate.
135 138 of 1962 and criminal revision applications 176 179 of 1963.
he states that the 2nd respondent permitted him to start a third shift after engaging new workers.
he further averred that the 3rd respondent approached him on may 25 196 1 and represented that it was quite necessary to work a third shift in the stamping department from i am.
similarly the third respondent who appeared before the court on the same day in answer to the same charge pleaded guilty and he also filed a written statement.
the appellant has given evidence to the effect that he did number allow 1 any worker to work in the third shift on the material date and that he did number receive any information from respondents 2 and 3 about the proposal to have a third shift on that date.
ultimately he pleaded for being let off with a numberinal fine.
he categorically stated that he had number informed the appellant about the proposed working of the third shift on may 26 and that it was without the knumberledge companysent or connivance of the appellant that this breach was companymitted.
though he has statedthat he does number knumber if the manager has given instructionsto the heads of the departments to companyply with the provisions of the act when the numberices exhibits 9 to 12 were shown to him he accepted that those numberices had been given by the appellant.
he also ultimately pleaded for being penalised by imposing a small amount of fine.
in his evidence he has referred to the fact that he attends to his duties from 11.30 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. and that there are about 2400 workers employed in the mill which companysists of several departments and for each of which a head had been appointed by the management.
appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated february 4 1964 of the gujarat high companyrt in criminal appeals number.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeals number 198 205 of 1964.
on may 26 1961 in view of heavy accumulation of work.
he also admitted that he was in exclusive charge of the stamping department on may 26 1961.
in cross examination he has referred to the fact that the mill employs about 2400 workers and that there are several departments in the mill and that heads are appointed for each department.
he further stated that he allowed the third respondent to work a third shift but by employing new workers and that it was only on may 27 1961 that he came to knumber that the third respondent had employed the same workers in the third shift also and that he took him to task.
the appellant has given evidence on december 6 1961.
the learned judges of the high companyrt have upheld the judgment of the magistrateholding the appellant guilty.
he stated that he had number companymitted any breach of s. 63 of the act and he specifically requested that the companyplaint filed by him against respondents 2 and 3 herein who are the salesman and supervisor respectively be enquired into by the companyrt.
reverting to the further proceedings before the magistrate summons were issued to respondents 2 and 3 on the cross complaint filed by the appellant on october 5 1961.
the factory inspector has accepted that the appellant was number in the mill at the time of his inspection and that respondent 3 was there at that time.
all the matters were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment by the high companyrt.
but as new workers were number available on that date the workers in the second shift were engaged by him and he accepts that by doing so he has companymitted an offence by mistake.
purshottam tricumdas and r. gopalakrishnan for the appellant in all the appeals .
the factory inspector has established by cross examination of the appellant that he has number proved the two essential companyditions mentioned in clauses a and b of s. 101.
j. these appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the gujarat high companyrt confirming the companyviction by the city magistrate ahmedabad of the appellant of an offence under s. 92 of the factories act 1948 act 63 of 1948 thereinafter called the act for breach of s. 63 of the said act and canceling a rule issued by it to respondents 2 and 3 herein to show cause against the order of discharge passed by the trial companyrt.
the inspector of factories ahmedabad found on a visit to the factory concerned at 3 a.m. on may 26 1961 certain workers actually working in the stamping department at that time.
l. teneja s. p. nayyar and r. h. dhebar for respondent number 1 in all the appeals .
the appellant was the manager of the saranpur companyton ma nufacturing company limited mill number 2.
he admits that the appellant had specifically warned him against double employment.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by vaidialingam.
in the written statement he stated that he was the stamping supervisor of the mill on the relevant date and that due to accumulation of work in the stamping department it was found necessary by him to have a third shift on the morning of may 26 1961.
according to the register of workers maintained by the factory in the form of attendance register those workers belonged to group ii relay 11.
on december 1 1961 the appellant pleaded number guilty to the charge leveled against him by the factory inspector.
