Management Not Responsible For Accident If Workman Does Not Utilize Provided Safety Equipment: Jharkhand High Court

Brief Facts:

The Workman employed with BMC Metal Cast Pvt. Ltd. (“Management”) suffered an injury while working. Following the accident, the Complainant inspected the factory premises on 24.9.2013 to ascertain the cause. According to the Complaint, during this inspection, it was discovered that safety measures were lacking, leading to the Workman's injury. The Management allegedly failed to comply with provisions of the Factory Act, of 1948, and the Jharkhand Factory Rules, of 1950. The Complainant lodged a complaint against the Management. Feeling aggrieved, the Management approached the Jharkhand High Court (“High Court”) to quash the order taking cognizance and also the entire criminal proceeding before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

The Management contended that the court's cognizance under section 92 of the Factory Act, 1948, was unwarranted. Further, the Director from the Management argued that he cannot be held responsible for the alleged lapses in safety measures, especially since the Workman himself acknowledged being provided with safety equipment. He argued that the case lacked merit and suggested that it had been unjustly pursued despite the absence of managerial negligence.

Contrarily, the State argued that the accident occurred within the factory premises, and upon investigation, the validity of the case was established. The State maintained that there was no legal flaw in the order taking cognizance.

Observations by the High Court:

The High Court noted that the incident occurred within the premises of the factory, and the Workman himself acknowledged the provision of safety equipment. Primarily, it held that there does not seem to be a case where the Management failed to provide safety equipment to the Workman. It held that safety equipment was supplied by the Management, and if the Workman failed to utilize it despite its availability, he could be held liable under the Factories Act. The High Court held that there was insufficient evidence to suggest prima facie that the occupier or manager was accountable for the accident.

Furthermore, the High Court noted that the order taking cognizance revealed a lack of judicial application, as evidenced by using the word "cognizance" in a blank space. Therefore, the High Court held that it was appropriate to quash the entire criminal proceeding before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella.

Case Title: Deepak Dokania vs The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 70

Case Number: Cr. M.P. No. 742 of 2014

Advocate of the Petitioner: Mr. Salona Mitta

Advocate of the Respondent: Mr. S.K.Shukla

Click Here To Read/Download order