- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7590 CRL.P No.100272 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100272 OF 2022 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. S. SURESH, OCCUPIER, M/S. E.I.D PARRY (INDIA) LIMITED, HULLATTI VILLAGE, HALIYAL-581 329, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. 2. J. VENKATARAO, (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS J. VENTATESHWARARAO IN THE COMPLAINT), FACTORY MANAGER, M/S. E.I.D PARRY (INDIA) LIMITED, HULLATTI VILLAGE, HALIYAL-581 329, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HARSH DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AT THE INSTANCE OF BHARATI MAGADUM SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES, HUBLI DIVISION-1, HUBBALLI 580 020, REP. BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD, DHARWAD-580 011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2021, IN CC NO.1888/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HALIYAL, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7A (1) & (2) OF THE FACTORIES ACT, 1948 AND RULES 84 & 85 OF THE KARNATAKA FACTORIES RULES, 1969 R/W. SECTION 92 OF THE FACTORIES ACT, 1948, AND SET ASIDE THE COMPLAINT IN CC NO.1888 OF 2021 (PC NO.12 OF 2021) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.06.18 10:05:13 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7590 CRL.P No.100272 of 2022 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) 1. This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners, who are Occupier and Manager of M/s.E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited, manufacturing unit, aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.11.2021, passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC at Haliyal, Uttara Kannada District, in C.C.No.1888/2021, for the offence punishable under Section 7A(1) and (2) of the Factories Act, 1948 and Rules 84 and 85 of the Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969 read with Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 and the complaint in C.C.No.1888/2021, which forms the basis for the criminal case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has basically contended that; - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7590 CRL.P No.100272 of 2022 2.1. The proceedings could not have been initiated against the petitioners by invoking the provisions of the Factories Act and/or the Rules therein, since admittedly, the deceased person was not a workman either engaged directly by the petitioner factory or borrowed from any other agency for its normal manufacturing process. 2.2. The petitioners are carrying on the production activity of manufacturing crystal sugar, co- generation of power, and manufacture of distillery products in the factory premises. However, on account of the normal wear and tear, the work of replacement of sugar-bin feeding belt conveyor was entrusted to M/s.Shree Balaji Enterprises of Uttar Pradesh on contract basis. The work commenced on 31.08.2021, and during the process of such work entrusted to the agency, the agency had - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7590 CRL.P No.100272 of 2022 deputed six contract workers to carry out the structure work of replacing the sugar-bin feeding belt conveyor. 2.3. During the process of such work being carried out by the entrusted agency, a mishap happened, and one of the workmen named Kuldeep Lallan, who was carrying out the works under the supervision of the contractor, accidentally fell to the ground from the height of 21 meters and later succumbed to the injuries. 2.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would therefore contend that the alleged contravention as noticed in the complaint filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for contravention of relevant provisions of the Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969 and Section 7A(1) and (2) of the Factories Act, 1948 could - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7590 CRL.P No.100272 of 2022 not have been invoked in the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove. 2.5. For that purpose, attention of this Court is also drawn to the definition of the term "manufacturing process" as found at Clause (k) of Section 2 of the Factories Act, which reads as follows: 2. Interpretation.— n this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,— (a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (k) “manufacturing process” means any process for— (i) making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, packing, oiling, washing, cleaning, breaking up, demolishing, or otherwise treating or adapting any article or substance with a view to its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal; or (ii) pumping oil, water, sewage or any other substance; or (iii) generating, transforming or transmitting power; or (iv) composing types for printing, printing by letter press, lithography, photogravure or other similar process or book binding; or - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7590 CRL.P No.100272 of 2022 (v) constructing, reconstructing, repairing, refitting, finishing or breaking up ships or vessels; or (vi) preserving or storing any article in cold storage. 2.6. Learned counsel would submit that, it is clear from the definition of the word "manufacturing process" that, it covers all the normal processes of manufacture, but when admittedly the works were entrusted to the outside agency, not being the normal manufacturing process and, on the other hand, the civil work entrusted to the outside agency, invocation of the provisions under the Factories Act or the Rules was not justified. 2.7. Notwithstanding the said argument, learned counsel would also point out to the complaint lodged by the Director of Factories, Hubballi, who on enquiry, found that six members of the contract workmen started shifting of the sugar conveyor structure from sugar bin section to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7590 CRL.P No.100272 of 2022 the ground floor with the help of two-way pulley. The enquiry clearly reveals the fact that the persons supervising the entire activity had taken all precautions and were guiding Kuldeep Lallan, who was sitting on the base frame of sugar bin area with the support of x-bracing. This would show that all precautions had been taken. 2.8. In fact, it is clearly stated that, Mr.Kuldeep was slowly releasing the rope tied to the structure of the bin, and the other end of the rope was held by him. However, Mr.Kuldeep himself increased the speed of releasing the rope which was tied to the structure, assuming that everything was going on safely and the conveyor was reaching the ground safely. During the said process, suddenly the rope tied to his hand pulled him with a jerk due to the weight of the conveyor, and Mr.Kuldeep was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7590 CRL.P No.100272 of 2022 pulled back along with the rope and he fell from the height of 21 meters to the ground. 2.9. Learned counsel would also point out from the complaint itself that, insofar as the safety measures for the workers of the factory were concerned, all were in place. But here is a situation where a work, which was not the normal manufacturing process, was being carried on by an external agency, and whatever safeguards and precautions had to be taken and requested were also given on behalf of the factory. Therefore, it is submitted that no disregard for safety measures can be attributed to the petitioners. 2.10. Learned counsel would also place reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramchandra vs. A.R.Vijendra1, where it was held that, if bodily injury was caused to a 1 ILR 1994 KAR 2437 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7590 CRL.P No.100272 of 2022 workman not on account of any inherent defect in the construction, situation, operation or maintenance of the means of transport, but on account of negligence of another employee, then it cannot be said that there is contravention of Rule 88. 2.11. Learned counsel would hasten to add that, in the present context, it is clear that there is no negligence on the part of any other employee or workman of the petitioners, and it is only on account of a small mistake committed by Mr.Kuldeep himself, who increased the speed of lowering the ropes. 2.12. It was also submitted before this Court that the petitioners have paid a sum of ₹16,00,000/- to the family of the deceased person under the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act. 3. Per contra, learned AGA would draw the attention of this Court to the definition of the term “worker” as - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7590 CRL.P No.100272 of 2022 provided in clause (l) of Section 2 of the Factories Act, which reads as follows: 2. Interpretation.— n this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,— (a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (l) “worker” means a person employed, directly or by or through any agency (including a contractor) with or without the knowledge of the principal employer, whether for remuneration or not], in any manufacturing process, or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for a manufacturing process, or in any other kind of work incidental to, or connected with, the manufacturing process, or the subject of the manufacturing process but does not include any member of the armed forces of the Union. 4. Learned AGA would submit that the definition of the term “worker” would also include any person employed directly or by or through any agency, including a contractor, and therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that the deceased person was not a contractor of the petitioner. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7590 CRL.P No.100272 of 2022 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA, and on perusing the petition paper, this Court finds that there is substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, while contending that primarily the work entrusted to an external agency was not in respect of the normal manufacturing process of the petitioner Factory. It was a civil work entrusted for replacing the sugar bin feeding conveyor belt and therefore, invocation of the provisions of the Factories Act and/or the Rules thereunder, would become suspect. 6. The definition of the term "worker," although would include any person employed directly or by or through any agency including the contractor, nevertheless, it should be in the process of any manufacturing process as could be found in the definition of the term "worker" Even otherwise, the complaint itself makes it clear that all standard precautionary safety measures were in place in the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7590 CRL.P No.100272 of 2022 factory unit of the petitioners. Even insofar as the work that was carried out by the external agency, it was a civil work that was being carried out. It appears that all precautionary measures were taken both by the petitioners as well as the contractor. It was an unfortunate incident where, because of the negligence of the deceased person himself, the accident occurred. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Haliyal, Uttara Kannada, directing to restore the criminal case against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 7A (1) and (2) of the Factories Act, 1948 and Rules 84 and 85 of the Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969 R/w. Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I pass the following: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7590 CRL.P No.100272 of 2022 ORDER i. The criminal petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 23.11.2021 passed in CC No.1888/2021, on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Haliyal, Uttara Kannada District, stands quashed. iii. All further proceedings initiated pursuant to the complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C in CC No.1888/2021, is hereby quashed and set aside. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE gab CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 10