Karnataka HC Refuses to Quash Factories Act Case Against MRPL Occupier Over Contractor Worker’s Fatal Burns

Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. (MRPL) engaged Engineers India Ltd. to manage a refinery project, including revamp and upgradation of its Sour Water Stripping (SWS) units.

A contractor engaged by the project contractor had assigned work to Northern Construction Company.

On 1 July 2020, two workers sustained burn injuries while working near a sour-water line within MRPL’s premises; one later died.

Following an inspection, the Deputy Director of Factories issued a show-cause notice alleging contraventions of the Factories Act, including Sections 7A and 38.

The petitioner, MRPL’s occupier and factory manager, replied, but the explanation and a subsequent statutory appeal were rejected.

A complaint was filed and the Magistrate took cognizance of an offence under Section 92.

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC, arguing, among other things, that the workers were employed by a subcontractor and that the work was not part of the manufacturing process

Section 2(l) of the Factories Act, 1948 defines “worker” to include a person employed directly or through an agency, including a contractor, in a manufacturing process or work incidental to or connected with it; Section 2(n) defines “occupier.”

Section 7A imposes duties on the occupier to ensure workers’ health, safety and welfare, including through necessary information, instruction, training and supervision, while Section 38 requires practicable fire-prevention and escape measures.

Section 92 provides the penalty for contravention of the Act or rules.

The Court treated the amended definition of “worker,” introduced in 1976, as extending beyond direct employees and held that contractual allocation of safety responsibilities does not, by itself, discharge statutory duties imposed on the occupier.

It also relied on *J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers*, (1996) 6 SCC 665, concerning occupier liability, and *Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda*, (2015) 12 SCC 420, and *Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate*, (1998) 5 SCC 749, on application of mind when taking cognizance.

The Court distinguished *Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh*, AIR 1958 SC 388, and *Lanco Anpara Power Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh*, (2016) 10 SCC 329, on the statutory and factual contexts considered in those cases.

The Court held that the subcontracted status of the workers did not, by itself, exclude them from Section 2(l), particularly after the 1976 amendment.

The SWS-unit work was undertaken as part of the revamp and upgradation of an existing refinery and could constitute work incidental to or connected with its manufacturing activities; temporary shutdown of the unit did not determine the issue.

The Court also found that the contractor’s safety obligations and the absence of a direct contract between MRPL and the subcontractor did not extinguish the occupier’s statutory duties.

The material concerning MRPL’s involvement in safety-critical functions supported allowing the prosecution to proceed.

The Court considered the cognizance challenge in light of the complaint material and held that the petitioner’s substantive defences were not grounds for quashing at that stage; they could be raised at trial.

It dismissed the criminal petition, leaving the petitioner’s defences available for consideration during trial.