KENI TRANSPORTS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner has presented this writ petition questioning the legality of a notice issued by the assistant labour commissioner, Bangalore, calling upon it to register itself under Section 7 of the contract labour (regulation and abolition) Act, 1970 ('the act' for short), read with Rule 18 of the rules framed the reunder.

(2.) the brief facts of the case arethese :- the petitioner is a transport operator. It entered into a contract with the Bangalore dairy for the distribution of milk to various depots in Bangalore city area. The assistant labour commissioner, who is incharge of the enforcement of the act issued a notice dated 24-2-1984 to the petitioner, which is marked as annexure-a. It reads :

(3.) the contention of the petitioner that according to the definition of the word 'contractor' given in Section 2(c) of the Act, it could not be regarded as a contractor for the purpose of taking licence under Section 7 of the Act, for the reason that it was a mere supplier of goods. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision rendered by a learned judge of this court in an un-reported case of B.B. Bhat v State of Karnataka (Cr.P. Nos. 46 & 78 to 82 of 1978, dd. 6-7-1978). In the said case, the transport contractors who had entered into contract with Mysore minerals Ltd., For transporting manganese ore had been prosecuted for violation of the Provisions of the Act, on the allegation that they were carrying on the contract work without securing registration certificate as required under Section 7 of the act. The learned magistrate before whom they were prosecuted found them guilty of the charges levelled against them and had imposed punishment on them. The order of the learned magistrate was challenged in the criminal revision petitions. In the revision petitions the contention urged by the petitioners therein was that they were only suppliers of goods and therefore they were not required to have their names registered under Section 7 of the act. The said contention was upheld. The relevant portion of the judgment reads :-