{"id":179528,"date":"2010-02-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010"},"modified":"2015-09-30T11:31:43","modified_gmt":"2015-09-30T06:01:43","slug":"smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Smt.T.K.Savithri vs The Inspector Of Factories And … on 16 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Smt.T.K.Savithri vs The Inspector Of Factories And … on 16 February, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.MC.No. 1996 of 2009()\n\n\n1. SMT.T.K.SAVITHRI, OCCUPIER,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :16\/02\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n            M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n          ===========================\n          CRL.M.C.No. 1996    OF 2009\n          ===========================\n\n    Dated this the 16th day of February,2010\n\n                     ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
    Petitioner is the accused in C.C.198\/2009<\/p>\n
taken cognizance for the offence under section<\/p>\n
92 of the Factories Act on Annexure I complaint<\/p>\n
filed  by  the   Inspector   of  Factories  and<\/p>\n
Boilers,  Kozhikode  under  section   105(1) of<\/p>\n
Factories Act. This petition is filed under<\/p>\n
section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure<\/p>\n
to quash Annexure I complaint as well as the<\/p>\n
cognizance taken.\n<\/p>\n
    2.    Learned  counsel   appearing  for the<\/p>\n
petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were<\/p>\n
heard.\n<\/p>\n
    3.  The argument of the learned counsel is<\/p>\n
that the allegations in Annexure I complaint is<\/p>\n
that the licence issued to the petitioner to<\/p>\n
run the factory M\/s.Super Pencil Industries,<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.1996\/2009             2<\/span><\/p>\n
Feroke expired on 31.12.2006 and was not renewed<\/p>\n
thereafter and therefore there is          violation of<\/p>\n
Rule     7     of   Kerala  Factories  Rules,  1957   as<\/p>\n
prescribed under section 6(d) of the Factories Act<\/p>\n
and punishable under section 92 of the Factories<\/p>\n
Act.       It is also the case that by failing to<\/p>\n
maintain first aid box equipped with the prescribed<\/p>\n
contents as provided under Rule 89A of Kerala<\/p>\n
Factories Rules, 1957, as provided         under section<\/p>\n
45(1) of Factories Act 1948, petitioner is liable<\/p>\n
for punishment        under section 92 of the Factories<\/p>\n
Act.       It is also contended that by failure to<\/p>\n
provide       and   maintain  adequate  number  of  fire<\/p>\n
extinguishers, petitioner violated        the provisions<\/p>\n
of sub section (1) of Section 38 of Factories Act<\/p>\n
which     is     punishable  under  section  92  of  the<\/p>\n
Factories Act.       The argument of the learned counsel<\/p>\n
is    that      though   petitioner  did  not  file   an<\/p>\n
application for renewal of the licence, within the<\/p>\n
statutory period        sub rule (3) of Rule 7 enables<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.1996\/2009             3<\/span><\/p>\n
the petitioner to file an application for renewal<\/p>\n
after expiry of the period of licence and as an<\/p>\n
application for renewal was subsequently submitted<\/p>\n
and it is even now pending, there is no violation<\/p>\n
of Rule 7 and therefore       prosecution  for violation<\/p>\n
of rule 7 is only an abuse of process of the<\/p>\n
court.       The argument of the     learned counsel is<\/p>\n
that proviso to sub rule (3) makes it absolutely<\/p>\n
clear that an application for renewal could be<\/p>\n
filed even after the period provided under sub rule<\/p>\n
(2), by paying an additional fee of 25% and even<\/p>\n
after      expiry    of  the  period   of  licence,   an<\/p>\n
application could be filed with an excess fee of<\/p>\n
50% and as petitioner filed an application for<\/p>\n
renewal,        there  cannot  be   a  prosecution   for<\/p>\n
violation of Rule 7,       as violation could only be if<\/p>\n
petitioner did not apply for         renewal of licence<\/p>\n
and still run the factory without a valid licence.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel also argued that if ultimately the<\/p>\n
application for renewal is allowed, it would relate<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.1996\/2009             4<\/span><\/p>\n
back to       1.1.2007, in which case there cannot be a<\/p>\n
violation of Rule 7 and on that ground also, the<\/p>\n
prosecution for violation of Rule 7 is an abuse of<\/p>\n
process of the court.\n<\/p>\n
      4.     Learned counsel then argued that though it<\/p>\n
is alleged that there is       violation of Rule 89A of<\/p>\n
the Kerala Factories Rules 1957, the complaint does<\/p>\n
not disclose whether the failure is to maintain<\/p>\n
first aid box       with all the prescribed contents as<\/p>\n
provided under the Rules        or though first aid box<\/p>\n
is maintained, it is without all the prescribed<\/p>\n
contents        and  the   material  produced  do   not<\/p>\n
establish        what  is   the  violation  and   hence<\/p>\n
prosecution for        violation of Rule 89A is also<\/p>\n
unsustainable.       Learned counsel then   argued that<\/p>\n
Annexure I complaint does not disclose whether the<\/p>\n
failure of the        petitioner is to provide any fire<\/p>\n
extinguisher        or  adequate      number  of   fire<\/p>\n
extinguisher and if it is failure to maintain<\/p>\n
adequate number of fire extinguisher, what was the<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.1996\/2009            5<\/span><\/p>\n
shortage, and hence       learned Magistrate should not<\/p>\n
have taken cognizance for violation of Section 38<\/p>\n
(1) of the Factories Act.\n<\/p>\n
      5.     Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that<\/p>\n
under sub rule (2) of Rule 7, an application for<\/p>\n
renewal of licence is to be filed in the prescribed<\/p>\n
form, not less than two months before the date on<\/p>\n
which the licence expires and though the proviso to<\/p>\n
sub rule (3) enables her to file an application<\/p>\n
belatedly, the deeming provision under sub rule (2)<\/p>\n
is not available in that case       and if that be so,<\/p>\n
as the licence expired on 31.12.2006 and when<\/p>\n
petitioner did not file an application for renewal<\/p>\n
even on 19.2.2009, when the complaint was filed,<\/p>\n
there was violation of the        provisions of Rule 7<\/p>\n
and hence the complaint cannot be quashed.      Learned<\/p>\n
Public Prosecutor also argued that complaint makes<\/p>\n
it    absolutely    clear  that  petitioner  failed  to<\/p>\n
provide first aid box equipped with prescribed<\/p>\n
contents and also maintain adequate number of fire<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.1996\/2009             6<\/span><\/p>\n
extinguishers and       prosecution cannot be quashed as<\/p>\n
sought for.\n<\/p>\n
      6.     Rule 7 of the Factories Rules provides for<\/p>\n
renewal of licence.       Under sub -rule (1), a licence<\/p>\n
is to be renewed by the competent authority.       Under<\/p>\n
sub- rule (2) an application for renewal of licence<\/p>\n
is to be filed in the prescribed form in triplicate<\/p>\n
and it shall be made to the competent authority.<\/p>\n
The application shall be filed not less than two<\/p>\n
months      before   the  date  on  which  the   licence<\/p>\n
expires.       Sub-rule (2) further provides that if the<\/p>\n
application is so made, the premises shall be held<\/p>\n
to    be    duly   licenced  until  such  date  as   the<\/p>\n
competent authority under sub rule (1) renews the<\/p>\n
licence or till the competent authority intimates<\/p>\n
the applicant in writing his refusal to renew<\/p>\n
licence as the case may be.       Sub- rule (3) provides<\/p>\n
that the fee for renewal of a licence shall be the<\/p>\n
same as that for       grant of a licence.  The proviso<\/p>\n
to sub rule (3) provides that if the application<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.1996\/2009            7<\/span><\/p>\n
for    renewal    is  not  received  by  the  competent<\/p>\n
authority within the time specified in sub-rule<\/p>\n
(2), the licence shall be renewed only on payment<\/p>\n
of an additional fee.        Under clause (i), if the<\/p>\n
application is received before the expiry of the<\/p>\n
licence, 25% of the fee ordinarily payable is to be<\/p>\n
paid.       Under clause (ii) if the application is<\/p>\n
received after the expiry of the licence, 50% of<\/p>\n
the fee ordinarily payable is to be paid.        Second<\/p>\n
proviso      mandates  that the   State  Government  or<\/p>\n
subject to the control of the State Government, the<\/p>\n
Chief Inspector may waive the payment of additional<\/p>\n
fee by a written order for valid reasons.<\/p>\n
      7.     Sub-rule (4) provides for  an application<\/p>\n
for renewal of licence.      Sub-rule (5) provides that<\/p>\n
every licence renewed under the rule shall remain<\/p>\n
in force upto 31st December of the years for which<\/p>\n
the licence is renewed.       The proviso to sub-rule<\/p>\n
(5) makes it clear that the Chief Inspector or the<\/p>\n
competent authority may renew the licence for more<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.1996\/2009            8<\/span><\/p>\n
than one year but not exceeding 5 years at a<\/p>\n
stretch, if an application is so made along with<\/p>\n
the chalan receipt towards the payment of the<\/p>\n
required fee in lumpsum.\n<\/p>\n
      8.     Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 makes it clear that<\/p>\n
an application for renewal shall be filed in the<\/p>\n
prescribed form not less than two months before the<\/p>\n
date on which the licence expires.      The consequence<\/p>\n
of such an application is also provided under sub<\/p>\n
rule(2).       It reads:-\n<\/p>\n
         “(2) Every application for the<\/p>\n
         renewal of licence shall be in<\/p>\n
         the     prescribed Form  No.2  in<\/p>\n
         triplicate, and shall be made<\/p>\n
         to the Competent Authority not<\/p>\n
         less than two months before the<\/p>\n
         date     on   which the   licence<\/p>\n
         expires and if the application<\/p>\n
         is so made the premises shall<\/p>\n
         be held to be duly licenced<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.1996\/2009            9<\/span><\/p>\n
         until     such   date   as  the<\/p>\n
         Competent Authority under sub-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n         rule (1) renews the licence or\n\n         till    the  Competent Authority\n\n         intimates    the   applicant  in\n\n         writing his refusal to renew\n\n         the licence as     the case may\n\n         be.\"\n\n<\/pre>\n
Though proviso to sub-rule (3) provides that an<\/p>\n
application for renewal, if not received within<\/p>\n
time provided under sub rule (2) the    licence could<\/p>\n
be renewed on payment of additional fee, it does<\/p>\n
not provide that if an application for renewal is<\/p>\n
made after the expiry of the period provided under<\/p>\n
sub rule (2) the premises shall be held to be duly<\/p>\n
licenced       until a  decision  is  taken in   that<\/p>\n
application, as is the case of an application filed<\/p>\n
within the period as provided under sub-rule (2).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Therefore eventhough a licence which expired could<\/p>\n
be renewed later, by filing an application for<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.1996\/2009            10<\/span><\/p>\n
renewal, the licensee cannot claim that there is a<\/p>\n
deemed      licence as provided under sub-rule (2).  If<\/p>\n
that be so, the argument of the learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the petitioner that in view of the<\/p>\n
application subsequently filed on 28.5.2009, there<\/p>\n
is no violation of Rule 7 of the Factories Rules<\/p>\n
cannot be accepted.        It is more so,     when the<\/p>\n
application         for renewal  was filed     only  on<\/p>\n
28.5.2009       and  the complaint  was  filed  earlier<\/p>\n
even the cognizance on Annexure I complaint was<\/p>\n
taken on 24.2.2009.       When cognizance was taken on<\/p>\n
24.2.2009, there was no licence as the licence<\/p>\n
expired on 31.12.2006.         There was not even an<\/p>\n
application for renewal of the licence.       Therefore<\/p>\n
the complaint or the cognizance taken cannot be<\/p>\n
quashed on that ground.\n<\/p>\n
      9.        The  complaint makes   it  clear   that<\/p>\n
petitioner       failed to  maintain    first  aid  box<\/p>\n
equipped with the prescribed contents as provided<\/p>\n
under Rule 89A of Factories Rules, 1957.      The  case<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.1996\/2009            11<\/span><\/p>\n
is not that petitioner maintained         the first aid<\/p>\n
box, but failed to provide the prescribed contents<\/p>\n
in the first aid box.           The allegation is that<\/p>\n
petitioner       failed  to  maintain    first  aid  box<\/p>\n
equipped with the prescribed contents.       Therefore I<\/p>\n
find no justifiable reason to quash the prosecution<\/p>\n
for violation of Rule 89A also.          Similar is the<\/p>\n
case with the violation to maintain adequate number<\/p>\n
of fire extinguishers as provided under section 38<\/p>\n
(1) of the Factories Act. Therefore Annexure I<\/p>\n
complaint or the cognizance taken cannot be quashed<\/p>\n
as sought for by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
      10.      Learned counsel then submitted that as<\/p>\n
Annexure       VI  application  is  pending  before  the<\/p>\n
competent       authority,  a  direction  be  issued  to<\/p>\n
dispose the application without further delay.        As<\/p>\n
the application is pending from 27.5.2009, the<\/p>\n
competent authority may dispose the application<\/p>\n
expeditiously.\n<\/p>\n
      11.        Learned  counsel   appearing  for   the<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.1996\/2009            12<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner then submitted that petitioner is aged<\/p>\n
about 68 years and her presence may not be insisted<\/p>\n
for the purpose of trial and she be permitted to<\/p>\n
appear      through  a  counsel.    It   is up  to  the<\/p>\n
petitioner       to  file  an  application, before   the<\/p>\n
Magistrate seeking permission to appear through a<\/p>\n
counsel      and   to  dispense with   her  presence  as<\/p>\n
provided under section 205 of Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure.        If an application is filed, learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate to consider it and pass appropriate<\/p>\n
orders in accordance with law.            Petitioner is<\/p>\n
entitled to take up all       defence before the learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate even based on the order to be passed in<\/p>\n
the application for renewal.\n<\/p>\n
      Petition is disposed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                    M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
\n                                             JUDGE
\ntpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     ———————\n<\/p>\n
      W.P.(C).NO. \/06\n<\/p>\n
     ———————\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
     SEPTEMBER,2006<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Smt.T.K.Savithri vs The Inspector Of Factories And … on 16 February, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 1996 of 2009() 1. SMT.T.K.SAVITHRI, OCCUPIER, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-179528","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt.T.K.Savithri vs The Inspector Of Factories And ... on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt.T.K.Savithri vs The Inspector Of Factories And ... on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-30T06:01:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt.T.K.Savithri vs The Inspector Of Factories And … on 16 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-30T06:01:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1755,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Smt.T.K.Savithri vs The Inspector Of Factories And ... on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-30T06:01:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt.T.K.Savithri vs The Inspector Of Factories And … on 16 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Smt.T.K.Savithri vs The Inspector Of Factories And ... on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt.T.K.Savithri vs The Inspector Of Factories And ... on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-30T06:01:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt.T.K.Savithri vs The Inspector Of Factories And … on 16 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-30T06:01:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010"},"wordCount":1755,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010","name":"Smt.T.K.Savithri vs The Inspector Of Factories And ... on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-30T06:01:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-k-savithri-vs-the-inspector-of-factories-and-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt.T.K.Savithri vs The Inspector Of Factories And … on 16 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179528","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=179528"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179528\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179528"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179528"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179528"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}