- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1057 CRL.P No. 5396 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5396 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. HARI GOVINDA THILAK OCCUPIER 2. SRI ADITHYA KAMBLE FACTORY MANAGER BOTH AT: N.L. WIND POWER BLADES INDIA PVT. LTD., PLOT NO 85, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, THIMMANAYAKANAHALLI DABASPET, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DIST. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K. DIWAKARA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HITESH GOWDA B.J., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DISTRICT OF FACTORIES, DIVISION NO 1, 2ND FLOOR, KARMIKA BHAVANA, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R. HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO (A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2019 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT IN CRL.RP.NO.123/2018. Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1057 CRL.P No. 5396 of 2019 THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 being the Occupier and Factory Manager who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in CC No.2028/2018 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, Bengalru Rural are seeking to quash the order dated 28.08.2018 taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 and also the order dated 27.06.2019 passed in Crl.R.P.No.123/2018 on the file of the learned VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. 2. Heard Sri. K. Diwakara, learned Senior Advocate for Sri. Hitesh Gowda B. J., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Rangaswamy R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State and perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1057 CRL.P No. 5396 of 2019 "Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 4. It is the contention of the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners that All India Council For Technical Education has issued a notification dated 15.06.2017 to impart training to enhance employability of a person either pursuing his or her Post Graduation / graduation/ diploma in any technical or non- technical stream or discontinued studies after Class 10th for the purpose of enhancing his/her employability. The notification of the scheme dated 15.06.2017 is produced before the Court as per Annexure - F. The object of the Scheme as stated above for the purpose of enhancing the National Employability Enhancement Mission (for short 'NEEM'), is to offer on the job practical training to the aforesaid persons. The eligibility of a trainee under 'NEEM' is also provided under Notification. The norms of contract of imparting training under the Scheme - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1057 CRL.P No. 5396 of 2019 specifies that 'NEEM' contract shall not be either an offer of employment or a guarantee of employment. 5. Clause 10.1 of the notification refers to the Health and Safety and Welfare of Trainees and it is stated that the 'NEEM' facilitator shall comply with the necessary provisions and the applicable Acts, to ensure welfare, safety and health aspects of the trainees while they undergo training. 6. The attention of the Court is drawn to Annexure-D- the Training Collaboration Agreement dated 16.03.2018 entered into between LM Wind Power Blades (India) Private Limited of which, the petitioners are Occupier And Factory Manager, and Yashaswi Academy for Skills - A Company having registered as a 'NEEM' facilitation under the 'NEEM' regulation for the purpose of implementing and to operationalize on job training program and 'NEEM' regulations. The scope of the training referred to in the agreement states the Yeshaswi is a Training partner in accordance with 'NEEM' regulations and the trainees shall under no circumstance be deemed to be the employees of the LMWP or of Yashaswi. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1057 CRL.P No. 5396 of 2019 7. The obligation of the parties at clause 5.1(x) states that in case where sourcing of trainees are done by the LMWP, the Company shall not transfer / enroll their employees who is/was a member of Provident Fund at any point of time as 'NEEM' trainee during the subsistence of this agreement. 8. Clause 5.1(xi) makes it clear that the trainees who are not covered under any of the clauses stated above, the occupier and the source trainee who was a member of Provident fund and currently unemployed but needs skill development. 9. Clause 12.2 of the agreement deals with the relationship of the parties. According to which, they are in the nature of independent contractors, and nothing in the agreement shall be construed to create a partnership, joint venture or employer - employee relationship between the parties. 10. In view of the above, it is clear that under the Central Government Scheme for imparting skill development for the qualified persons referred to in the scheme, an agreement - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1057 CRL.P No. 5396 of 2019 was entered into between the occupier and the facilitator i.e., Yashaswi Academy for Skills. As per the agreement, the trainees were not considered as employees and it was not a guarantee to provide employment after imparting training. 11. Learned Senior Advocate has produced a letter in the form of clarification of status of student-trainees of Educational/Technical institutes recognized by Central/State Government or any authority constituted by them vis-à-vis the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, issued by the Employees' Provident Fund Organization dated 12.10.2015 clarifying that employer employee relationship does not exists between the Industry and the Student-trainee, who is on Industrial job training as an integral component of the recognized course. 12. The respondent - Deputy District of Factories filed a private complaint before the Trial Court against the petitioners as Occupier and Factory Manager alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act. It is the contention of the complainant that one P.S.Bharath, who was the trainee under the 'NEEM' scheme sustained injury on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1057 CRL.P No. 5396 of 2019 17.05.2018 and was treated and discharged. Therefore, the petitioners are liable for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act. Section 7(A) of the Factories Act deals with general duties of the occupier and Sub Section (2)(c) refers to provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as are necessary to ensure the health and safety of all workers at the work. 13. The Factories Act was introduced to regulate the employment of the labourers in Factories in India. Section 92 in Chapter X of the Factories Act refers to the general penalty for offence under the provisions of Section 93. 14. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore Vs. Central Arecanut and Coca Marketing and Processing Coop.Ltd., Mangalore'1. The Apex Court had an opportunity to refer to the definition as to where employee was defined under Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and held that, an Apprentice engaged under the 1 (2006) 2 SCC 381 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1057 CRL.P No. 5396 of 2019 Apprentice Act or under the Standing Orders is excluded from the definition of the word 'employee'. It also held that the case on hand the trainees were apprentice engaged under the standing orders of the establishment and hence, they are not the employees in terms of Section 2(f) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act. 15. Placing reliance on this decision learned Senior Advocate contended that in the present case, there are ample materials to show that the injured was only a trainee under the 'NEEM' Scheme introduced by the Central Government and he was being imparted training by the petitioners under a Training Collaboration Agreement with the facilitator i.e., Yeshaswi Academy for Skills. 16. The very name of the Scheme-National Employability enhancement Mission ('NEEM' for short) offers job practical training to enhance employability of a person either pursuing his education or discontinuing his studies after class 10th for the purpose of enhancing his or her employability. The Scheme specifically states that there will not be any employer-employee relationship between the two. The Scheme - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1057 CRL.P No. 5396 of 2019 also makes it clear that 'NEEM' facilitator shall comply with the necessary provisions and applicable Acts to ensure welfare, safety and health aspects of the trainees while they undergo training. Admittedly, the facilitator is Yeshaswi Academy for Skills and not the petitioners herein. 17. While filing the private complaint, the respondent specifically states that injured was undergoing training who was operating Balsa groove cutting machine. The only allegation made against the petitioners is that the petitioners being the Occupier of the Factory have contravened the provisions of Sections 7-A(2)(c) of the Factories Act. Section 7-A(2)(c) of the Factories Act deals with information, instruction, training and supervision that are necessary to ensure health and safety of all workers and the work place. 18. When the materials referred to above disclose that the injured was never the employee in the factory, but he was deputed for skill development under the special scheme, he cannot be considered as an employee or a worker to apply the provisions of the Factories Act. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1057 CRL.P No. 5396 of 2019 19. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Trial Court without taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, proceeded to take cognizance of the offence and registered the criminal case. The said order taking cognizance was confirmed by the revisional Court and therefore, they pray for quashing those orders. 20. In view of the discussions held above, I am of the opinion that Section 92 of the Factories Act, could not have been invoked against the petitioners in view of the materials that are placed on record. Therefore, the order taking cognizance and confirming the same, are required to be quashed. 21. In view of the above, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 27.06.2019 passed in Crl.R.P.No.123/2018 on the file of the learned VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is hereby set aside. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1057 CRL.P No. 5396 of 2019 (iii) The order dated 28.08.2018 passed in CC.No.2028/2018 on the file of the learned Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC., Nelamangala taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 is hereby quashed against the petitioners herein. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8