1 CGHC010144022017 2026:CGHC:37507 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 79 of 2017 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Labour, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (The Petitioner No. 1 Was Not A Party With Complete Address Before The Learned Labour Court But Has Been Impleaded As Petitioner No. 1 In The Instant Petition As The Proper Course Is To Implead The State Government Through The Secretary Of The Concerned Department) 2. Chhattisgarh State Labour Department, Through Factory Inspector, Deputy Director Industrial Health And Safety, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Rajesh Ahuja Orient Ispat Private Limited, Village Tedesara, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2. R. P. Sahu, Orient Ispat Private Limited, Village Tedesara, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General For Respondents : Ms. Priyanka Rai Mishra, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.08 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records, pertaining to present case. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs, direction/ directions, SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.08.24 16:17:17 +0530 2 order/orders, holding that the impugned orders dated 08/09/2014 (Annexure-P-1) and order dated 22/04/2013 (Annexure-P-2) is bad in law, arbitrary, therefore the same may kindly be set aside/quashed. 10.3 Cost of the petition be allowed. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts in brief are that on 22.09.2010 workman namely Ram Kumar Deshmukh succumbed to death on account of collapse of under construction wall within factory premises. On 04.10.2010, a show-cause notice was issued under Section 41 read with Rules 73C and 73E, and Section 7-A(1) of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short “Act, 1948”) and the Factories Rules, 1962 (Rules, 1962) to the respondent No. 1/Rajesh Ahuja, who was owner of the factory and respondent No. 2/ R.P. Sahu, who was factory manager making allegations to the effect that their conduct was in contravention to the provisions of Section 41 read with Rules 73C and 73E, and Section 7-A(1) of the Act, 1948 and the Rules, 1962. A report was lodged at the concerned police station too. An inquiry was conducted by Dy. Chief Factory Inspector and after its completion, complaint case was filed along with charge-sheet by Dy. Director, Industrial Health and Safety, Durg under Section 105 of Factories Act, 1948 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon. 3. The prosecution examined Factory Inspector K.K. Dwivedi, who exhibited relevant documents and deposed that work of construction of wall was to be supervised by the Civil Engineer Hemant Shrivastava. This witness further stated that there was an agreement between the management and the Civil 3 Engineer and there was breach of conditions of terms of agreement. This witness also stated that it was duty of the Factory Manager to supervise and inspect on going construction work. This witness also admitted the fact that no show-cause notice was issued to Civil Engineer Hemant Shrivastava. 4. Learned Trial Court after due appreciation of evidence dismissed the complaint case filed by the petitioners herein vide order dated 22.04.2013. An appeal was preferred before the learned Division Bench of Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Raipur under Section 65(1)(c) of Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, which was also dismissed vide order dated 08.09.2014. The petitioners have challenged both the orders by filing this petition. 5. Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G. appearing for the State/petitioners would contend that there was an agreement between the management and the Civil Engineer Hemant Shrivastava, therefore, the learned Courts below should have taken cognizance against him. He would submit that the petitioners adduced cogent evidence to prove guilt of Civil Engineer Hemant Shrivastava. It is also argued that sufficient documents were plaud by the prosecution. He would pray to allow this petition. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Priyanka Rai Mishra, Advocate appearing for respondents would oppose. She would submit that there was no allegation in accordance with the Rule 73C & 73E of the Rules, 1962 against the respondents. She would contend that though allegations have been made against the Civil Engineer Hemant Shrivastava, but he was not impleaded an as accused in the complaint filed by the petitioners herein. She would also submit that no show-cause notice was issued to Civil Engineer Hemant Shrivatava, and therefore, the learned Labour Court dismissed the complaint 4 case and learned Appellate Court affirmed the order passed by the learned Labour Court. She would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 8. Section 41 of the Act of 1948, Rule 73C & 73E of the Rules, 1962 and Section 7-A(1) of the Act of 1948 are as under :- “41. Power to make rules to supplement this Chapter.— The State Government may make rules requiring the provision in any factory or in any class or description of factories of such further devices and measures for securing the safety of persons employed therein as it may deem necessary. 73C. [ Buildings and structures. [Inserted by Notification No. 4(a) 4-91-16B, dated 6-4-1995.] - No building, walls, chimney, bridge, tunnel, road, gallery, stairways, ramp, floor, platform, staging, or other structure, whether of a permanent or temporary character, shall be constructed, situated of maintained in any factory in such a manner as to cause risk of bodily injury. 73E. Method of work. - No process or work shall be carried in any factory in such manner as to cause risk of bodily injury. 7A. General duties of the occupier.— (1) Every occupier shall ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of all workers while they are at work in the factory. 9. Perusal of the complaint and charge-sheet filed against respondents would make it clear that there was no allegation against the Rajesh Ahuja and R.P. 5 Sahu and there was no material to infer that there was any nexus between collapse of under construction wall and any of the act of these respondents. Though an agreement was entered into between the factory management and Civil Engineer Hemant Shrivastava, but mere execution of an agreement would not be sufficient to hold a person guilty for any mishappening. Civil Engineer Hemant Shrivastava was not a party in the complaint case and no show-cause notice was issued and thus he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. In absence of material, the learned Trial Court rightly dismissed the complaint case filed by the petitioners herein and the learned Appellate Court affirmed the findings. 10. Perusal of complaint case and charge-sheet would make it clear that there are no allegations against the Rajesh Ahuja and R.P. Sahu and Civil Engineer Hemant Shrivastava according to above-quoted provisions. 11. Having considered the facts discussed-above, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Courts below. 12. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant