Director deemed "occupier" under Section 2(n) of Factories Act despite internal executive designations.

On October 16, 2005, a workman named Dukhiram Lohar fell into an open Rotervane machine at the Jalan Nagar South Tea Estate Factory and died instantly

The Inspector of Factories conducted an enquiry and found that the management failed to provide fencing or covers for the floor opening where the machine was installed

an Offence Report was filed against the petitioners (the Executive Director and the Manager) under Section 92 of the Factories Act.

The Trial Court (CJM, Dibrugarh) convicted the petitioners to two years S.I. and a fine

On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to a fine/compensation of Rs. 50,000 each

The petitioners moved the High Court in revision, contending they were not "occupiers" and that safety measures were in place

1. Whether the petitioners fall within the definition of "occupier" and "manager" under Section 2(n) and Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, to be held liable for the accident

2. Whether there was a contravention of safety provisions regarding the fencing of machinery and prior approval of the layout for the installation of the Rotervane machine

Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, which imposes strict liability on the occupier and manager for any contravention of the Act’s provisions or rules

definition of "occupier" under Section 2(n), which identifies the person with ultimate control over the factory's affairs, specifically noting proviso (ii) which deems any director of a company to be an occupier

Rule 3-A of the Assam Factories Rules regarding the necessity of obtaining prior layout approval for machineries

Legal precedent from J.K. Industries & Ors v. Chief Inspector of Factories (1996) was used to establish that directors cannot escape liability by nominating subordinates as "occupiers"

The court rejected the petitioners' argument that they were not "occupiers," noting that as Executive Director and Manager, they exercised ultimate control over the factory's affairs in alignment with Section 2(n)

Regarding safety negligence, the court observed that while the petitioners claimed the machine was guarded, they could not explain how the worker’s head was crushed if proper fencing existed

The Inspector's report (PW-2) confirmed that one side of the machine was open and lacked safety measures

the court found that the petitioners installed the machine without prior layout approval; although they applied for approval in July 2005, it was only granted on October 24, 2005, eight days after the fatal accident

the "deemed approval" argument was factually unsupported as the layout was not pending for the mandatory period without action before the incident

It held that the petitioners were "occupiers" and "managers" responsible for the safety of the workers and that the lack of fencing and layout approval constituted a clear violation of Section 92 of the Factories Act

The court affirmed the modified sentence passed by the Appellate Court, directing each petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000