Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 24-09-2019 in case of petitioner name Shri Subir Bose vs Inspector of Factories, repres
| |

Factories Act Violation: Supreme Court Accepts Fine in Berger Paints Fire Case

The case of Shri Subir Bose v. Inspector of Factories revolves around a legal dispute under the Factories Act, 1948, arising from a fire incident at a Berger Paints factory in Goa. The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant, a former Managing Director of Berger Paints, could plead guilty and pay a fine to resolve the case, considering his age and the prolonged legal proceedings.

Background of the Case

The case stems from an incident on April 28, 2006, when a fire broke out at Berger Paints’ factory located at Kundaim Industrial Estate, Goa. While no fatalities occurred, one worker, Shri Tulsidas Dutta Palkar, suffered minor injuries and was discharged from the hospital after treatment on the same day.

Subsequently, the Inspector of Factories, Goa, filed a private complaint under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, against the appellant, Shri Subir Bose (Managing Director of Berger Paints), and another accused, Shri S.M. Lahiri (Factory Manager). The allegations included:

  • Operating the factory without a valid license/permission, violating the Goa Factories Rules, 1945.
  • Failure to implement adequate safety measures to prevent fire hazards, violating Sections 37 and 38 of the Factories Act.

Legal Arguments Presented

Arguments by the Appellant (Shri Subir Bose)

  • The appellant was a resident of Kolkata and was not directly involved in factory operations in Goa.
  • The factory was in the process of shutting down operations at the time of the fire.
  • The police had filed a closure report in FIR No. 110 of 2006, concluding that no criminal charges were made out against any of the accused, including the factory worker who was injured.
  • The complaint did not specify clear violations of Sections 37 and 38 of the Factories Act.
  • The appellant, now over 70 years of age, sought to resolve the case by pleading guilty and paying the maximum fine permissible.

Arguments by the Respondents (Inspector of Factories, Goa)

  • The factory was operational without valid permission or a license.
  • There was a failure to take adequate safety measures to prevent explosions or fire hazards.
  • The complaint was filed in accordance with legal provisions, and the appellant, as Managing Director, was responsible for compliance.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Court acknowledged that the appellant was the Managing Director of a large company with multiple factories and depots across India, making it difficult to attribute personal liability for specific incidents. The Court also noted that the appellant’s claim of the factory shutting down operations needed to be proven during the trial.

However, the Court found merit in the appellant’s plea regarding the closure report filed by the police, which indicated that no criminal charges were made out. The Court observed:

“The complaint refers to violation of Sections 37 and 38 of the Factories Act, albeit without giving specific particulars and details. Hence, to this extent, the complaint is vague and does not disclose a specific violation.”

Final Verdict

Considering the prolonged litigation, the appellant’s age, and the lack of serious injuries in the fire incident, the Supreme Court accepted the appellant’s plea to resolve the case by paying a fine. The Court ruled:

  • The appellant was convicted under Section 92 of the Factories Act and directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.
  • The fine must be deposited with the trial court within four weeks from the date of judgment.
  • If the appellant fails to deposit the fine, he will undergo eight weeks of simple imprisonment.
  • The criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 9/LAB/2006/B before the Judicial Magistrate, Ponda, Goa, were disposed of.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

  • Corporates must ensure compliance with safety regulations to avoid liability under the Factories Act.
  • Long-standing litigation can be resolved through plea bargaining in appropriate cases.
  • The Court prioritizes fairness and efficiency in cases where prolonged trials may not serve justice.

This ruling reinforces the principle that while industrial safety laws must be enforced strictly, the judicial system must also consider practical factors such as delay in proceedings, the age of the accused, and the severity of the alleged violations.


Petitioner Name: Shri Subir Bose.
Respondent Name: Inspector of Factories, represented by S. M. Paranjpe & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Indu Malhotra, Justice Sanjiv Khanna.
Place Of Incident: Kundaim Industrial Estate, Goa.
Judgment Date: 24-09-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Shri Subir Bose vs Inspector of Factori Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 24-09-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Workplace Harassment
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Indu Malhotra
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjiv Khanna
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts