Factories Act compliance: temporary shift changes did not satisfy notice rules, and good faith did not excuse breach.

Section 61(10) of the Factories Act applies only to a genuine change in the factory's system of work requiring alteration of the notice of periods of work; a temporary deviation for individual workers, even if notified to the Inspector, does not fall within that provision and leaves liability under section 63 intact. Section 117 protects only acts done in compliance with, or intended compliance with, the Act, and good faith alone does not excuse a breach. On these principles, the defence under sections 61(10) and 117 failed, the contravention was established, and the conviction was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a temporary change in the working hours of individual workers, notified to the Inspector before it was made, fell within section 61(10) of the Factories Act, 1948 so as to avoid liability under section 63; (ii) Whether the respondent was protected by section 117 of the Factories Act, 1948 on the ground that the act was done in good faith.

Issue (i): Whether a temporary change in the working hours of individual workers, notified to the Inspector before it was made, fell within section 61(10) of the Factories Act, 1948 so as to avoid liability under section 63.

Analysis: Section 63 makes it obligatory that adult workers be employed only in accordance with the notice of periods of work displayed under section 61 and the entries in the register under section 62. Section 61(10) contemplates a proposed change in the system of work which requires the notice itself to be recast, and not a casual departure from the notice in respect of particular workers. The requirement that no such change be made until a week has elapsed also indicates that the provision is directed to overall changes in the factory's system of work, not to individual deviations. The respondent's conduct therefore did not fall within section 61(10), and the absence of any applicable exempting provision left the employment contrary to the notice unjustified.

Conclusion: The respondent was not entitled to rely on section 61(10), and the contravention of section 63 was established.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent was protected by section 117 of the Factories Act, 1948 on the ground that the act was done in good faith.

Analysis: The protection under section 117 is available only where what is done or intended to be done is under the Act, that is, in compliance with or intended compliance with its provisions. Good faith alone is insufficient. The section does not extend to acts done contrary to the Act, even if honestly done. The scheme of the Act, including the special provision enabling an occupier or manager to shift liability to the actual offender under section 101, also shows that section 117 cannot be used to excuse a breach of the Act. No such defence was made out on the facts.

Conclusion: The respondent was not protected by section 117.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside, the conviction under the Factories Act, 1948 was restored, and the appeal succeeded for the State.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 61(10) applies only to a genuine change in the factory's system of work requiring alteration of the notice of periods of work, and section 117 protects only acts done in compliance with or intended compliance with the Act, not breaches of it.

---