1 CGHC010377532018 2026:CGHC:39409 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 235 of 2018 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Labour, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Deputy Assistant Director, Industrial Health And Safety-Cum- Assistant Factory Inspector, Chhattisgarh Government, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - Harish Chandra Bhagwani M/s. Jai Ambey Dal Industry (Mill) Sector B, Sirgitti, Plot No. 103, Industrial Area, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For State/Petitioners : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G. For Respondent : None appears Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09.09.2026 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking following relief(s) : “i. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records, pertaining to order dated 15/02/2018 passed by the Court of Industrial Court, Bench Bilaspur (CG) in Appeal Case No. 01/CGIR Act/IV/2017. ii. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs, direction/ directions, order/orders, holding that the impugned order dated 15/02/2018 passed by -2- the Court of Industrial Court, Bench Bilaspur (CG) in Appeal is bad in law, arbitrary, therefore it may kindly be set aside/quashed and the uphold the order dated 05/10/2017 passed by the Court of First Class-Cum- Magistrate, Labour Court, Bilaspur (CG) in Case No. 502/Factory Act/2010 Fatal. Case No. 01/CGIR Act/IV/2017 iii. Cost of the petition be allowed. iv. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The facts, in brief, are that a complaint case was filed by the petitioners/State herein under the provisions of Section 105 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short, ‘the Act of 1948’) against the respondent, alleging that the respondent was the occupier/owner of Jai Ambe Dal Industry and during inspection, it was found that a lady workman, namely, Rajkumari sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to death on 23.06.2010. A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent and after investigation, a complaint case was filed. The incident was witnessed by one Madan Dhruv, whose name was mentioned in the charge-sheet. The prosecution examined the Factory Inspector to prove the guilt of the respondent. 4. Learned Labour Judge-cum Judicial Magistrate First Class, Labour Court vide order dated 05.10.2017, convicted the respondent for violation of Section 92 of the Act of 1948 under Sections 6 and 7 read with Rule 4 of the Act of 1948, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo two months’ simple imprisonment. Further, for violation of Section 21 of the Act of 1948, the respondent was sentenced to undergo two months’ simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of 3 Rs.1,00,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for two months. 5. The respondent herein challenged said order by filing an appeal under Section 65(1) of the CGIR Act, 1960 before the learned Industrial Court. The learned Industrial Court allowed the appeal on two grounds: (i) the eyewitness, namely, Madan Dhruv, was not examined by the prosecution; and (ii) the prosecution failed to place on record any documentary evidence to establish the fact that the respondent was the owner/occupier of Jai Ambe Dal Industry. The petitioners have challenged said order by filing the present petition. 6. Mr. Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/petitioners would argue that there was ample evidence on record to infer that the respondent was the owner of Jai Ambe Dal Industry and on account of negligence on the part of the owner of Jai Ambe Dal Industry, Smt. Rajkumari sustained fatal injuries and subsequently died. He would contend that the Factory Inspector was examined, who proved the allegations levelled against the respondent. He would further contend that, after due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed along with the relevant documents, but the learned Industrial Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record and, thus, committed illegality in allowing the appeal. He would pray to allow this petition. 7. I have heard Mr. Pandey at length and also perused the record. -4- 8. Perusal of the record would reveal that one Smt. Rajkumari, who was working as a workman in Jai Ambe Dal Industry, sustained injuries on 23.06.2010 and subsequently succumbed to death. After due investigation, a complaint case was filed and a charge- sheet was also filed. Madan Dhruv was cited as an eyewitness. 9. Perusal of the charge sheet would show that there is no document to infer that the respondent was the occupier or owner of Jai Ambe Dal Industry. Further, the prosecution failed to examine the sole eyewitness to prove the guilt of the respondent. The learned Appellate Court considered the evidence available on record and set aside the order passed by the learned Labour Court. 10.Having considered the facts discussed hereinabove and findings recorded by the learned Industrial Court, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha