Section 97 of the Factories Act 1948 - Offences by Workers
Section 97 dealt with a worker who breached a duty or liability imposed on workers by the Factories Act, 1948, its rules, or orders made under it. The provision also explained when the occupier or manager would not be treated as guilty for the same contravention.
Text and meaning of Section 97
Section 97(1): Subject to Section 111, a worker employed in a factory who contravened a provision of the Act, a rule, or an order imposing a duty or liability on workers could be punished with a fine extending to Rs. 500.
Section 97(2): If the worker was convicted for that contravention, the occupier or manager was not automatically treated as guilty for the same contravention. Liability could still arise if it was proved that the occupier or manager failed to take all reasonable measures to prevent it.
What did Section 97 cover?
The section was aimed specifically at duties placed on workers. It was not a general penalty provision for every breach occurring in a factory. For Section 97(1) to apply, the relevant provision, rule, or order had to impose a duty or liability on the worker, and the worker had to contravene that obligation.
Meaning of the reference to Section 111
Section 97 was expressly made subject to Section 111 of the Factories Act. Section 111 dealt with obligations of workers, including restrictions against wilfully interfering with or misusing safety, health or welfare appliances; doing anything likely to endanger oneself or others; and wilfully neglecting the use of safety appliances provided for securing workers' safety or health.
Accordingly, Section 97 had to be read together with the worker duties created elsewhere in the Act and in valid rules or orders made under it.
Penalty under the former Section 97
The maximum fine under Section 97(1) was Rs. 500. The amount had earlier been Rs. 20 and was substituted by Section 35 of the Factories (Amendment) Act, 1987 with effect from 1 December 1987.
Effect on the occupier or manager
A worker's conviction did not, by itself, make the occupier or manager guilty of the same contravention. Section 97(2) protected the occupier or manager unless it was proved that all reasonable preventive measures had not been taken. The provision therefore distinguished the worker's personal breach from a separate failure of factory management to take reasonable precautions.
Repeal of the Factories Act and savings
The Central Government brought the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 into force on 21 November 2025. Section 143 of that Code repeals the Factories Act, 1948 along with other specified central labour enactments.
The repeal does not mean that every earlier act, rule, order, proceeding, right or liability simply disappears. Section 143 contains savings provisions and expressly applies Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It also continues actions and instruments made under the repealed enactments to the extent provided by the Code and to the extent they are not contrary to it. The precise effect in a pending or historical matter depends on the facts, the date of the event and the applicable saving provision.
Practical takeaway
For an alleged worker contravention occurring while the Factories Act was in force, Section 97 may remain relevant because of the repeal and savings framework. For current workplace safety and working-condition obligations after 21 November 2025, the starting point is the OSHWC Code, 2020 together with the applicable Central or State rules, standards, notifications and saved instruments.