IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15830 of 2009(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. MOHAMMED NOUFAL, MANAGING PARTNER, TASTY NUT INDUSTRIES, BHARATEEPURAM P.O., KOLLAM. 2. K. THYAGARAJAN, MANAGER, TASTY NUT INDUSTRIES, BHARATEEPURAM P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.T.M.CHANDRAN MR.S.SUJITH MR.V.A.SASIDHARAN MR.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF BOILERS AND FACTORIES, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS GRADE II, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS, CHENGANNUR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.15830 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 9th June,2009 J U D G M E N T First petitioner is the Managing Partner and second petitioner is the Manager of an establishment which runs a cashew factory in several places including Bharatheepuram. According to them, raw cashew Is imported and then processed in the factory. All the documents/registers like Muster Roll, Wage Register were maintained by the petitioners. By Exhibits P1 and P2, 3rd respondent intimated them of certain violations of the Factories Rules namely non-maintenance of leave with wages register, and failure to provide leave book in the prescribed form and also annual leave with wages as contemplated by Section 79 of the Factories Act, 1948. Almost identical allegations are contained in Exhibits P1 and P2. Petitioners have submitted Exhibits P3 and P4 explanations thereto. But they apprehend prosecution in respect of infraction of the provisions of the Factories W.P ( C) No.15830 of 2009 2 Act. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to look into Exhibits P3 and P4 and pass a reasoned order. Prosecution for infraction of the provisions of the Factories Act shall be launched or continued against the petitioners only after such orders are passed. When the 3rd respondent decides to initiate action obviously this can be done only in accordance with law. Petitioners will have a remedy vis-à- vis such prosecution if launched by the respondents. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.15830 of 2009 3 W.P ( C) No.15830 of 2009 4