P.D. Sharma, J.
1. S.K. Jagnani accused-petitioner is the Manager of Messrs. Birla Cotton, Spinning and weaving ouches Limited, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, which is a factory within me meaning of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter reterred to as the ActJ. The Inspector of Factories, eerie, on ixia Decembe, 1961, inspected the said factory and round titian ten workdrs of Automatic Loom Shed were working at 5-45 P. M. on that day during the rest interval otherwise than in accordance with the notice of periods of work displayed with working hours from 1-30 p. m. to 9-30 p. m. and rest interval from 5-30 p. m. to 6-00 p. m. which contravened trie provisions of Section 63 of the Act. 'the Chief Inspector of factories on the basis of the inspection report put in four separate complaints Under Section 63 read with Section 92 of the Act against Section 4. Jagnani, three in respect of three workers each and the fourth in respect of the tenth worker in the Court of Mr. M.M. Aggarwal Magistrate First Class, Delhi.
2. The accused-petitioner raised a preliminary cdjsction that only one complaint could have been, loggia -against him in regard to the alleged contravention of the .-.provisions of -section 63 of the Act because all the ten workers were found working during the rest interval in the Automatic Loom Shed. The trial Magistrate overused the preliminary objection and declined to consolidate the tour complaints. The accused-petitioner filed a revision petition against this order which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. He has come up in revision to this Court.
3. Sections 63 and 92 of the Act run 25-
63. No adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in any factory otherwise than in accordance with I the notice of periods of work for adults displayed In the factory and the entries made before hand against his name Jin the register of adult workers of the factory.
92. Save as is otherwise expressly provided in mis-Act and subject to the provisions of Section 93, if in, or in respect of, any factory there is any contravention of any provisions of this Act or 'Of any rule made thereunder or of any order in writing given thereunder, the occupier and manager of the factory shall be guilty of an offence and punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine, which may extend to time hundred rupees or with both, and if the contravention is continued after conviction, with a further fine, which may-extend to seventy-five rupees for each day on which the contravention is so continued.
4. The language of Section 63 is clear enough to comate that the occupier and Manager of, the factory commit -default in the case of each adult worker when they require or allow him to work in any factory otherwise than in accordance with the notice of periods of work for adults displayed in the factory and the entires made beforehand against his name it the register of adult workers of the factory, The gravamen of the charge is that an adult worker has been (required or allowed to work beyond the prescribed nours and without making the necessary entries in the register or adult workers of the factory. it is not that the cnsnge in his working hours has not been incorporated in the notice of periods of work displayed in the factory and or responding entries not made in the register of adult workers of the factory. The learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner contended that since all the ten workers worked during the rest interval by one order of the Manager of the factory, therefore, the Manager committed one default and not as many as the workers. I am not impressed if this ingenious argument which does not fit in the phrase-logy of Section 63 of the Act. He, however, relied on the four cases, (1) The State v. Jamnadas Vasanji Am 1962 Guj. 234, (2) In re, P. Laksnmaiah Naiau, aik 1959 Andh Pra 536, (3) Bnagat Singh v. The Staie aik 1952 SC 45, and (4) In re, Vanka Venkataratnam AIR 1935 Mad 301. The first three cases as aiscussea by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his oroer have no bearing on the facts of the present case and thus do not help the petitioner. In the four ease, tour persons were employed in a factory on a Sunday without giving notice to the Inspector and without fixing a notice in the place mentioned in Section 36 of the Act. Burn J. observed, 'But as I hold that the employment of we tour persons mentioned in C. C. Nos. 143 to 146 of 1933 constituted one offence only and not four ottences, I shall confirm the conviction and sentence in C. C. No. 143 of 1933 alone and set aside the convictions and essences in C. c. Nos. 144, 145 and 146 of 1933.' rna learned Judge did not give any reasons for coming to the above conclusion. The learned Counsel for the State reterred to the cases (i) Vrijvaliubedas Jekisondas v. Emperor AIR 1921 Bom. 322 (1), (Z) N. K. unitnis State. AIR 1953 Madh-B. 230, (3) State v. H. B. Namjotfil : AIR1956Bom189 , (4) State v. Manager sutaria Automobiles : (1956)IILLJ303Bom , and (5) Kamiapat v. tin-peror AIR 1930 All 214. In the first two cases It has been specifically held that a contravention- in respect of each worker in a factory has been made punishable Under Section 92 of the Act. In the following three cases conviction of the Manager of the factory in respect of each worker was upheld and thereby the interpretation of Section 63 read with Section 92 of the Act as put Dy the learned Counsel for the State-respondent approved respectfully follow the rule of law as laid down In AIR 1921 Bom 322(1) and AIR 1953 Madh-B. 230 and hold that the Chief Inspeotor of Factories was Justified In lodging four complaints against the accused-petitioner In the Court of the learned trial Magistrate.
5. The revision petition has no force and is dismissed.