GIRIDHAR RAJAGOPALAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.9065, 9069 & 9126 of 2017, on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent lodged the complaints against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 62(1)(2)(t), 30(1) read with Rule 123(1), 62(1)(2)(zc), Section 40(1)(2)(r) read with 39(1)(a)(b) and 62(1)(2)(zc), Section 40(1)(2)(u) read with Rule 46(1) of the Building and Other Constructions of Workers (Regulation of Employment & Conditions of Service Act), 1996 hereinafter referred to as "BOCW" Act. He further submitted that the allegations as against the petitioner are that the respondent inspected the Chennai Metro Rail Project on 03.07.2017 and found violations under the above said offences. Due to the said violations, the worker was succumbed to severe injuries on his head. Therefore, the petitioner is charged the allegations that the employer did not maintain the register of Employment of Building Workers employed by them at the construction site and was not produced even on demand during inspection. Further, the construction work was carried by the contractor without preparing a written statement of policy in respect of safety and health of workers containing the provisions mentioned in Rule 39(1)(a)(b) and without submitting the same to the Director of Industrial Safety and Health, Chennai. Finally alleged that, the employer/contractor of the establishment, has not provided safety helmet conforming to the national standards to the construction workers working at construction site.

(3.) He further submitted that, in this regard, a show cause notice was issued to the Project Manager, who is in charge of the day to day affairs of the Project. After receipt of the same, a detailed reply dated 29.07.2017 submitted to the respondent. The respondent did not satisfy with the explanation submitted by the Project Manager and lodged a complaint as against the petitioner.