Section 96: Jurisdiction of courts

The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (Act No. 37 of 2020) • Official Statutory Text & Plain English Practice Guide

Statutory Mandate
Chapter XI: Offences and Penalties
Competent Labour Forum
Act No. 37 of 2020

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 96

Section 96 of the Code defines the territorial and judicial jurisdiction of courts for trying offenses under the Code, specifying that offenses shall be tried by a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class having local jurisdiction.

  • Hierarchy of Competent Judicial Courts: Restricts trial jurisdiction exclusively to Judicial Magistrates of the First Class or Metropolitan Magistrates, barring lower Executive Magistrates from adjudicating penal offenses.
  • Territorial Jurisdiction Demarcation: Anchors venue to the geographical area where the establishment, factory, or mine is physically situated or where the fatal accident occurred.
  • Summary Trial Empowerment: Authorizes Magistrates to try designated minor offenses summarily in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factories (1996) 6 SCC 665: Supreme Court affirmed that jurisdiction to try factory occupiers vests exclusively in first-class judicial magistrates following regular criminal procedure.
  • State of Bihar v. Kirly Mines AIR 1961 SC 171: Reaffirmed that territorial jurisdiction over subterranean mining offenses belongs exclusively to the magistrate having local territorial authority over the mine mouth.
  • Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P. AIR 1958 SC 388: Invalidated orders passed by officers lacking statutory magisterial powers under the governing labor statute.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Verify the territorial jurisdiction of the court issuing summons: if a corporate corporate headquarters located outside the judicial district is improperly served without establishing local establishment jurisdiction, challenge the process at the inception.