JOHN DOUGLAS KEITH BROWN v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 639; 1964 INSC 291
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: RAGHUBAR DAYAL , J.R. MUDHOLKAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
1964 INSC 291. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1964-12-17. JOHN DOUGLAS KEITH BROWN v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
A B c D JOHN DOUGLAS KEITH BROWN v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL December 17, 1964 [RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ. ] Fuctories Act (63 of 1948), ss. 52 and 92-Scope of-Violation by manager-If "occupier" liable. The appellant was an "occupi. :r", as defined in s. 20(n) of the Fac- tories Act, of certain mills. The manager of the mills contravened the provi after midnight on Saturdays which would be continued up to the follow- ing morning will be considered towards the work done on Saturdays. In that case submission of notice under ioection 52 of the Act would not be necessary. " That being the position, we would have had an occasion to OOlll>ider Maganbhai's case(') if it were the appellant's case that the weekly holiday had been altered without his knowledge or consent. But that is not so. Moreover, there is ample material to show that what the manager did was within the full knowledge A B of the appellant and, presumably, was also with his consent.
In C this connection we may point out that on January 18, 1957 the Manager of the Mills sent · a letter to the Chief Inspector of Factories which runs thus : "HOWRAH MILLS COMPANY LTD. Ref. No. G. 12/4968 Howrah, West Bengal, 18th January, 1957. The Chief Inspector of Factories, New Secretariat Building, Calcutta. Dear Sir, We request your permission to operate the batching to wind- ing departments in No. 1 Mill, as shown on the attached sheet with effect from Sunday the 27th January, 1957. )) r. An early reply would be appreciated. r It will be noted that all shifts will then work 48 hours per week. Yours faithfully, Sd/- J. P. Bell Mill Manager. " A copy of this letter was sent to M/s. Jardine Henderson Ltd. , Calcutta of which the appellant is admittedly the Managing Director.
From the letter of the same date addressed to the Manager by the General Secretary of Howrah Jute Mills Karma- chari Sangha it would appear that the workers categorically H refused to work according to the schedule proposed by the Mill (I) A. LR. 190~ Nag. 41. JOHN DOUGLAS v. STATE (Mudholkar, !. ) 643 A Manager. The Sangh, however, proposed altemative working hours for the "C" shift and there it is suggested that the workers would work on Sunday from 8. 30 P. M. to 6. 00 A. M. This sche- dule was also accepted by the National Union of Jute Workers to which some of the workmen in the Mills belong. This would appear from the letter of its Joint Secretary, dated January 21, B 1957. On February 5, 1957 the Mill Manager wrote another letter to the Chief Inspector of Factories requesting for approval of the new Schedule of working hours.
It may be mentioned that even in the original schedule of working hours which is appended to the btter of January 18, 1957 by the Mill Manager the starting time of the first shift was also 8. 30 P. M. on Sunday. On February c 9, 1957 the Chief Inspector of Factories asked the Mill Manager to forward the resolution of the Works Committee of the Factory or other documents to show that the workers had agreed to work in the factory at 8. 30 P. M. on Sundays. The Manager's reply to D E F G it was as follows :- · "Dear sir, Re : Treble shift working in No. 1 Mill With reference to your letter No. 818 dated 9th Feb- ruary 1957 we forward herewith as desired by you two original letters with one true copy of each from the General Secretary of Howrah (Jute) Mills Karmachari Sangha and Joint Secretary of National Union of Jute Workers requesting the management to adopt the exist- ing working hours of the "C" shift in No. 1 Mill.
We trust this will be found to be in order and would request you to kindly return the original letters after your perusal. Yours faithfully, J. P. Bell Mill Manager" A copy of this letter was also sent to M/ s. Jardine Henderson L! 'l. The fact that copies of letters of January 18, 1957 and February 18, 1957 were sent to Jardine Henderson Ltd. , would H fix the occupier i. e. , the appellant before us, with the knowledge of what the Manager had proposed to do. Therefore, quite apart from the fact that as the Managing Director of Jardine Henderson / 644 SUPREMB COURT REPORTS (1965) 2 S. C. R. Ltd. who were themselves the Managing Agents of the Howrah A Mills, the appellant must be deemed to have known what was being done by the Manager of the Mills. We have_positive evi- dence of the fact that the Manager had apprised him of what he was proposing to do.
The appellant took no steps to restrain the Manager from putting the new schedule in operation which was in itself in violation of the opening words of s. 52. We may B further point out that what the provisions of s. 52(1) (a) and (b) permit is to grant exemptions to specified workmen from the operation of the prohibition enacted in s, 52 from working in factories on weekly holidays. No geneiral permission can be granted under els. (a) and ( b) of sub-s. ( 1) of s. 52 for altering C the day of the weekly holiday so as to cover all the workmen. Therefore, upon the proper construction of the provisions it is clear that whenever workers are required (or are permitted) to work on a weekly holiday the specific permission of the Chief In~pector of Factories in respect of each and every worker who is required to work on such a day should be obtained. That being o the provision of law the occupier must be deemed to have known it.
Being duly apprised of the fact that the Mill Manager was seeking to start the 'C' shift from 8. 30 P. M. on Sunday without specifically mentioning the names of those workmen who had to work in that shift he was doing something which was not within the purview of els. (a) and (b) of sub-s. (1) of s. 52. Of this I: fact the occupier had actual knowledge and, therefore, he must be held guilty of the contravention of the provisions of s. 52 of the Act. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed. r
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.