SHRI ANDREW STERN Vs. LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CENTRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come forward with these petitions seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings pending in S.T.C.Nos.251 and 237 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, for the alleged offences under Section 9 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and Rules 74, 81(1)(i), 81(2) and 81(3) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 and Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 respectively.

(2.) THE above two criminal original petitions are arising between the same parties, viz., the petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant are one and the same in respect of the contravention of same Act and Rules, viz., Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and therefore, both the petitions taken up together for disposal by this Court with the consent of both the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.

(3.) MR. Habibullah Badsha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is nothing to do with the cargo handling at Airport and cargo handling is done by AAI and as such the provisions under the Act and the Rules are not applicable to the petitioner herein and put forward the following contentions:(1) As per the provision under Section 12(3)(r) of the Airports Authorities Act, cargo handling shall be the function of the AAI and cargo handling at Airport is done only by the AAI and cargo handling cannot be done by any private party and in respect of the petitioner the cargo handling was all along carried on only by AAI and therefore, implicating the petitioner for the contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules are baseless as the petitioner would not come within the purview of the Act and Rules (2) The petitioner sent a reply dated 13.11.2003 to the Show Cause Notice dated 15.10.2003 in respect of both the cases explaining that the petitioner is nothing to do with the cargo handling and as such the petitioner would not fall within the purview of the Act and Rules. It is further stated in the reply that the petitioner has entered into an agreement with the AAI for the purpose of handling its cargo at the Chennai Airport and only the AAI engaged and employed its own workmen on a contractual basis to carry out the work arising out of the agreement and as such the workmen so employed could not be construed to be workmen employed by the petitioner. The complainant having acknowledged the receipt of the reply notice on the same day, i.e., on 13.11.2003 itself has deliberately stated in the complaints filed subsequent to the receipt of the reply on 22.12.2003 that no reply was received to the Show Cause Notice served on the petitioner and proceeded to file the impugned complaints and as such the complainant suppressed the material facts and on that ground itself the complaints are liable to be quashed(3) As far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner can bring the cargo only upto the Airport and thereafter the cargo handling is carried out only by the AAI till the cargo is loaded on to the aircraft. Therefore, the petitioner's establishment is not engaged in entrusting any work to the contractor for cargo handling as the same is only done by the AAI and as such the provision under the Act and Rules is not applicable to the petitioner herein(4) There is no specific allegation against the petitioner, who is the Chief Executive Officer, to the effect that he is in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, viz., British Airways World cargo, and as such the complaint is not maintainable against him (5) The entire allegations contained in the complaint are vague and bald and there is no specific and definite allegations levelled against the petitioner and the complaints have been filed mechanically without application of mind (6) It is alleged in S.T.C.No.237 of 2005 that Section 2(2)(c) of the Act violated but there is no such provision under the said Act and as such the impugned complaints are filed without application of mind.By making the above said submissions, the learned senior counsel vehemently contended that in view of the provisions of the Act and Rules itself are not applicable to the petitioner, the allegations made against the petitioner for the breach of the Sections of the Act and Rules are totally absurd and perverse and as such the complaint is liable to be quashed.