STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VOGUE GARMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Government Labour Officer and Inspector of the Office of the Commissioner of Labour Gujarat State filed a complaint against the present respondents for contravention of Rule 21 on the Contract Labour (Regulations & Abolition) Act 1970 hereinafter referred to as The said Act and for the non-compliance with the order issued under the said Act punishable under sec 24 of the said Act. The same complaint was registered as Criminal Case No. 49 of 1977 in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad.

(2.) On behalf of the complainant one Mr. K. T. Vazirani was examined. His evidence is brief and we may note the same at the outset. He stated that he was working as an Inspector under the Provisions of the said Act and as such on 18-2-77 he visited one Nayan Trading Company at about 9-00 a m. One Shirish Shah accused No. 2 was present. He was the principal employer. Thereafter at about 3-30 p.m the same Shirish Shah and the complainant went to the place of business of the accused No. 1 M/s. Vogue Garments. He found that 30 or 32 persons were doing the stitching workThe machines were run by the electric power. They were preparing the shirts. They were working for Nayan Trading Company. According to the complainant Nayan Trading Company had given a contract to accused No. I-firm and it was Nayan Trading Co. which was supplying the goods to the accused No. 1. According to the complainant nobody on behalf of the accused No 1 was present. Only supervisor was present. Accused No. 3 Yogeshbhai came there at about 6 p.m. Accused Nos. 2 to 7 are the partners of the accused No. 1. they are doing business and after the goods are prepared they are sent to Nayan Trading Company. The complainant states that the accused did not obtain the necessary licence under the provisions of the said Act. Hence the complaint was filed.

(3.) In his cross-examination he admitted that he had not read any written contract given by Nayan Trading Company to the accused No. 1. He also admitted that he did not examine the books of accounts of the accused No. 1 firm nor had he given any show cause notice to it. He has also admitted that he did not know the nature of the work which was to be carried out by the accused No. 1.