UDAY KOTAK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions have been filed under section 482 of Cr. P. C. praying to call for the records pertaining to C. C. Nos. 4337 and 4338 of 2004 pending on the file of the Court of II metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai and quash the same.

(2.) THE petitioners would submit that the 1st petitioner is working as Vice-Chairman and managing Director at Mumbai and the 2nd petitioner is employed as Zonal Controller, south commercial Vehicles at Kotak Mahindra bank Limited at Chennai; that the 2nd petitioner received a notice dated October 31, 2003 from the respondent alleging non-compliance of certain provisions of the contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as the 'act') by the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited at Chennai; that upon due consideration, it was found that there is no violation of the legal provisions and consequently it was presumed that the issue was set at rest by the respondent; that the 2nd petitioner subsequently received summons from the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, chennai in C. C. No. 4337 and 4338 of 2004 calling upon the petitioners herein to appear in person before the Court on July 9, 2004 in respect of the complaint preferred under section 23 of the Act for breach of Sections 7 and 9 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and abolition) Rules, 1971 and under Section 24 for violation of the Central Rules; that the provisions of the Act are not attracted as the petitioners have not employed Contract Labour at any point of time; that the respondent had no jurisdiction under law to file the complaints and cause issuance of summons on the petitioners through their local branch at Chennai; that there is no employment of the Contract Labour and there was no need for the registration under section 7 of the Act and Section 9 has no application in the matter; that the inspection report fails to reveal the details of names and location of the establishment which was inspected by the respondent and the inspection report under column 5 also has number of employees over written and corrected and that it can be safely construed that no inspection was conducted by the respondent; that the first petitioner is the Vice Chairman and Managing director of the bank who is not based at chennai and inclusion of his name as the principal employer by the respondent as an accused is nothing but motivated; that as per section 2 (g) (iv) of the Act, 'principal employer' is defined as a person responsible for supervision and control of the establishment; that at no stretch of imagination, the Vice-Chairman and the Managing Director can be deemed to be in control and supervision of an establishment which is yet to come into existence and the same is the case of the 2nd petitioner who is a Zonal Controller for South and hence, they are not responsible for the supervision and control of an establishment.

(3.) THE petitioners would further submit that the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited was started very recently under the Reserve Bank of India licence and recently a licence was granted for opening the branch at 555, Anna salai, Chennai-600 018 on October 3, 2004 and the licence for starting a branch at CEEBROS centre, 1st Floor, Montieth Road, Egmore was issued on February 18, 2003; that the petitioners had issued work order with N. S. Associates Private Limited for interior decoration and for civil and electrical work for a period of one month for setting up a branch in Anna Salai; that the petitioners bank purchased Air- conditioners for installation in the company and therefore, this cannot be construed as engagement of contract labour for turning out any routine banking activity; that regarding the contract referred to in the inspection report with Jayalakshmi Security service, the various High Courts have held that the employment of the people for safety and security cannot be brought under the purview of the Act and as such the Act itself is not attracted; that the the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed as for as the petitioners are concerned, since nowhere in the complaint it is mentioned that the Petitioners were the persons nominated by the Bank; that the complaint was premature without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and the entire proceedings are contrary to the principles of natural justice and the summons issued by the respondent are liable to be quashed and hence the petitioners would seek the relief extracted supra.