1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner assisted by learned counsel Mr. Gaurav Abhishek.
Heard Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, A.C. to S.C.-IV, appearing on behalf of respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
(a) For the issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately
consider the representation of the petitioner and decide and modify the notification (Annexure-1) by suitably modifying the notification by bringing
down the number of statutory deployment of the Safety Officers from 26 to 16 in view of the reduced number of workers employed in the factory
having registration no.28977/DNB where the number of workers employed has drastically come down from 40,000 (approx.) in 1989 to 26,000
(approx.) currently.
(b) To hold and declare that the minimum requirement of the deployment of the Safety officers as governed under Section 40-B of the Factories Act,
1948, read with Rule 62-B (5) of the Rules, the minimum number of Safety Officers required to be deployed is directly proportionate and dependent
upon the total number of workers employed in the factory. (c) To pass appropriate direction upon the respondents to grant exemption in the meantime
to the Safety Officers who are experienced and technically qualified to act as Safety Officers but who could not get the training in Safety from
recognized institute in Jharkhand as there is no such institute available to the knowledge of the petitioner and for such circumstances the provision to
grant exemption to qualified Safety Officers is contained in the rules itself for which requests has been made but in view of the exemption not being
granted under Rule 62-B(5)(2) (2nd proviso), and neither reducing the minimum number of required Safety Officers as per the statutory requirement
on the other hand, the respondents are threatening penal action against the petitioner.
(d) For issuance of such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may think just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is mainly seeking a direction upon the respondents to amend the notification dated 13.02.1989
issued under Section 40-B of Factories Act read with Rule 6-B of Factories Rules by reviewing the number of safety officers keeping in view the man
power strength of the unit of the petitioner. It is submitted that by virtue of the aforesaid notification, the then Government of Bihar, Labour
Department notified the number of Safety Officers for the plant of the petitioner on the basis of the man power strength as existed in the year 1989.
Petitioner submits that by the lapse of time the man power strength for the plant of the petitioner has reduced considerably and consequently request
by way of repeated representations were made to the respondents to reduce the number of safety officer and for that purpose suitable amendment in
the notification dated 13.02.1989, by revising the required number of safety officer is to be issued but till date no action has been taken. One such
representation is dated 19.02.2010 as contained in the writ petition. There are subsequent representations also which have been annexed in the writ
petition.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that final decision is in fact to be taken by the Secretary, Department of Labour Employment and Training
Government of Jharkhand and prays that necessary direction be issued to the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass
appropriate order on the basis of the present strength of the employees in the plant of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
under similar circumstance, vide order dated 15.09.2003 passed in W.P.(C) No.5094 of 2003, this Court, in the matter of Heavy Engineering
Corporation, has directed the petitioner of that case to file fresh representation before the authority and on the presentation of the representation the
concerned authority was directed to make the necessary enquiry after hearing the party and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order within a
stipulated time frame. The petitioner submits that pursuant to such order the necessary notification was issued by the respondent and the number of
required safety officers in Heavy Engineering Corporation were duly reduced. He further submits that similar order may be issued in this case.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that if a representation is filed before respondent No.1 for the purpose of making
an enquiry and for determining the required safety officers keeping in view the present strength, the same shall be done within a period of four months
after making the necessary inspection.
6. After hearing the counsels for the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is disposed of with a
liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation before respondent No.1 within a period of one month from today with a request to revise the
number of safety officers in the plant of the petitioner and on the presentation of such representation along with a copy of this order, respondent No.1
is directed to take up the matter and get the necessary enquiry conducted and hear the petitioner and dispose of the representation by passing a
reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of representation along with a copy of this order. Till
the respondents/authorities take a final decision in the matter, it is directed that no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner for non-
deployment of the safety officers. The petitioner is directed to co-operate in the matter of enquiry for taking final decision in the matter. It is further
directed that the respondent/authorities will not take any coercive steps against the petitioner for a period of 5 months from today provided that
petitioner ensures safety measures in its plant as per the supervision of the respondent/authorites.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.
8. In view of final order passed in the writ petition, I.A. No.2121 of 2014, I.A. No.5051 of 2015 and I.A. No.8822 of 2017 are disposed of.
