Judgment:
Vaidya, J.
1. This group of 12 Criminal Revision Applications is directed against the impugned judgments and order - all dated 20-5-1985, rendered in as many criminal cases, by the learned J. M. F. C. Surat, wherein the respondent - Navin F. Zaveri, owner of 'Mit & Mir Private Limited, 'Surat, who came to be prosecuted for the alleged contravention of certain provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 [for short 'the Act'] and the Rules made thereunder, under the Gujarat Factories Rules, 1963, punishable under Section 92 of the said Act, [as alleged in detail in 12 complaints] was ordered to be discharged on the short ground that the complaints were filed beyond the time limit of 3 months as prescribed under Section 106 of the said Act.
2. In all these cases, since the facts situation and the law governing the same are by and large common, it is decided to hear and dispose of all of them together by this common judgment.
3. To state view relevant facts as far as they are necessary to decide the question of law involved, it may be briefly stated that in response to the process issued on the basis of complaints Exh. 1 dated 2-11-1984, filed by the Factory Inspector, the respondent appeared before the Court and submitted an application Exh. 4 dated 25-5-1985 taking up the preliminary contention that as all the complaints were filed beyond the period of limitation of 3 months, as prescribed under Section 106 of the Factories Act, the same deserves to be dismissed and he be discharged accordingly. Making good this contention, it was pleaded by he respondent that the Factory Inspector had earlier visited his factory on 21-7-1984 and it was only on that date that he had come to know about the alleged contravention of certain provisions of the Factories Act and the Rules made thereunder. Not only but the Factory Inspector had also made some notes in the Visit-book. In this view of the matter, the period of limitation began from 21-7-1984 and not from 7-8-1984 as asserted by the Factory Inspector.
4. The above application Exh. 4 was opposed by the Factory Inspector by filing his reply Exh. 6. However, the learned Magistrate accepted the preliminary contention of the respondent and dismissed all the complaints as time-barred - hit by Section 106 of the Factories Act, giving rise to the present group of 12 Criminal Revision Applications.
5. Now, on carefully perusing the record and the reasons given by the learned Magistrate while dismissing the complaints and discharging the respondent, it clearly appears that the learned Magistrate has unnecessarily got himself observed by the fact that the Factory Inspector might have visited the factory on 21-7-1984. May be on that day, the Factory Inspector might have visited the factory and made some notes, however, that does not mean that having regard to the definite case of the Factory Inspector in his complaints that when he visited the factory in question on 7-8-1984, he was found having contravened the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder, and in that view of he matter, his previous visit on 21-7-1984 was indeed of no consequence. It is rather unfortunate that the learned Magistrate did not take care to consider the reply Exh. 6 filed by the complaint wherein in para 1 it has been specifically stated that he had visited the factory on 7-8-1984 at 4.30 p.m. and it was at that time only that he had made notes of his visit in the Visit Book. Not only that but the Factory Inspector has further specifically alleged that the complaints filed against the respondent were regarding offences that took place on 7-8-1984 and not those of 21-7-1984. Unfortunately this aspect has been surprisingly over-looked by the learned Magistrate while deciding the matters. There was no reason whatsoever for deciding this preliminary contention on mere assertions of the respondent. In fact, there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the Factory Inspector when he said that 'alleged contravention of the provisions of the Factories Act and Rules were noticed by him on 2-11-1984 were beyond the period of limitation. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders discharging the respondent passed by the learned Magistrate having no substance shall have to be quashed and set-aside and the matters shall have to be remanded to the trial Court for taking cognizance of the offence and proceed ahead with the trial to decide the same on merits and according to law.
6. While ordering remand of these cases, this Court is quite conscious of the fact that the alleged offences against the respondent are of the 1984 and by this time as many as 9 years have already passed. And indeed, ordinarily, this Court would be quite reluctant to remand the matters at such a belated stage, still however, taking into consideration the fact that (i) the offences alleged against the respondent are the offences which seriously affect the undermine the interest of the poor, helpless, illiterate working class, and (ii) though with atmost anxiety the Parliament enacted special Statute viz., The Factories Act, 1948, and yet the same are found to be not taken seriously by some of the learned Magistrates even after 45 years of its enactment, throwing the cause of the workers to the winds, not to remand such cases would not only be indirectly putting premium over the errors and offences committed by the learned Magistrates and the respondents, but rather this Court has a further feeling that if such matter are not remanded, it may as well expose itself to condemnation of being party perpetrating the said injustice ! We all known that in such type of cases, after the complaints are filed, there is no much procedure to be followed except to record the plea of the accused and than to examine quite a few witnesses - in most of the cases only complainant, and yet for whatsoever reasons it takes around not less than 2 to 3 years to get matters disposed of ! And that too either on the ground that the (i) complainant absent when the case was called out, (ii) the case is old one and despite sufficient time given no witnesses examined and (iii) respondent pleading guilty, and punishment till the rising of the court or some nominal fine, etc. etc. Now when such orders are challenged before the High Court, by the time it reaches the final hearing, if the early hearing is not fixed at the time of admission, obviously it easily takes about 8 to 9 years ! Under such circumstances on the stoke ground that the matters have become pretty stale, if cases are not remanded, the same indirectly puts a seal of approval to the patently illegal orders of the trial Courts ! This Court certainly cannot permit itself to be a victim of such unavoidable circumstances which in turn run as a counter-blast to the Labour Welfare Jurisprudence.
7. Turning to the facts of the present case, there is indeed no doubt whatsoever in the mind of this Court that the complaints which came to be filed by the Factory Inspector bears effect from 7-8-1984 when the alleged contravention of the Factories Act and Rules came to be noticed, and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the same were filed beyond the period of limitation of 3 months as prescribed under Section 106 of the Factories Act.
8. In the result, all these Criminal Revision Applications are allowed. The impugned judgment and orders passed by the trial Court discharging the respondent are hereby ordered to be quashed and set aside. Taking into consideration the fact that the alleged offence is of the year 1984, the learned Magistrate is directed to decide all these cases as expeditiously as possible. Mr. D. K. Trivedi, the learned P. P. is hereby directed to ask the Complainant - Factory Inspector, Surat to appear before the learned Magistrate on 2nd November, 1993 and take fresh date for further proceedings as well as direct service to be served upon the respondent. R&P; are ordered to be sent forthwith. Applications allowed.