K GOURISANKARAN Vs. LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CENTRAL CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL. O.P. Nos. 15482 and 11681 of 1999 are being disclosed of by this common order, as both the petitions for quashing would arise out of single complaint. Mr. Gori Sankaran, Assistant General Manager, Indian Bank and Ms. Hamsa Priya, Proprietrix, Salute, the accused in C.C. No. 3085 of 199 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, have filled both these petitions seeking for the quashing of the above proceedings. The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), the respondent herein, inspected the premises of the petitioner-bank on 18-2-1999 and found that the petitioner-bank had employed 11 contract labourers through Ms. Hamsa Priya, Proprietrix, Salute, Chennai in violation of the prohibitory notification issued by the Central Government dated 9-12-1976 under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulations & Abolition) Act, 1970. On the same day, the respondent sent a show cause notice to both the petitioners to show cause within 10 days as to shy action should not be taken against them under section 23 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition), Act 1970 and also directed them to rectify the said violation within 10 days. Despite the receipt of notice, they neither gave satisfactory reply nor sent compliance report. Therefore, the respondent herein filed a complaint on 17-5-1999 before the trial Court and the same was taken on file in C.C. No. 3085 of 1999 for the offence under Section 23 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

(2.) AS noted above, both the accused have filed these petitions under Section 482 Cr. P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings on the following grounds :-

(3.) THIS submission, in my view, has force and the decisions cited by the counsel for the petitioners would refer to the residential staff quarters. But, in the instant case, the building in question is an institution giving training to the employees of the bank. In other words, it could be easily construed that the said institution is the limb of the establishment, namely, bank. The Supreme Court in a recent decision in I.A. Authority Employees Union v. I.A. Authority of India (2001 Lab I.C. 322) while dealing with the question as to whether the car parking area in Santa Cruz and Sahara Airports, would clearly hold that the sweepers employed in the car parking area in the international airport are entitled to be regularised in service, as the notification dated 9-12-1976 would prohibit the employment of contract labour for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of the building owned by or occupied by the establishment. The above observation made by the Supreme Court, in my view, would squarely applicable to the facts of the present case also. Thus, it can be safely held that the employment of contract labourers in the building, where the employees of the bank are trained for the effective functioning of the bank, would clearly attract Section 10(1) of the Act. Therefore, the first ground would fail.