DIEBOLD SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Sardessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel (Government Counsel, for short) appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2.

(2.) BY this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the complaint bearing Criminal Case No. 12/L/2012/C pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Vasco -da -Gama, Goa (J.M.F.C., for short).

(3.) THE said Criminal Case arose out of a private complaint filed by respondent no. 2 against the accused (petitioners) for violation of Section 8(1)(b) of the Interstate Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and conditions of service) Act, 1979 (the Act, for short) and rules 49, 51, 52(2)(a), 52(2)(c), 52(2)(d), 54 and 55(1) (i) of Interstate Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and conditions of service (Central Rules, 1980) (the Rules, for short), punishable under Section 26 of the Act. It is alleged that the accused no. 1 is a contractor within the meaning of Section 2(1) (b) of the Act engaged by the Federal Bank of India, Head Office, Aluva, Kerala, the principal employer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g)(iv) of the Act for the work of furnishing new branch set up for Federal Bank at Vasco -da -Gama, Goa. Shri K. A. Sebastian, Labour Enforcement Officer, (Central) Vasco, Goa who is an Inspector under the Act had inspected the said contract work of the accused on 24/01/2012 and had observed that the accused had committed various breaches. Interstate Migrant Workmen numbering 8 were employed on 24/01/2012, without obtaining licence, which amounted to violation of Section 8(1)(b) of the Act; register of persons employed was not maintained, which amounted to violation of Rule 49 of the Rules; register of displacement cum outward journey allowance and register of return journey allowance were not maintained,which amounted to violation of Rule 51 of the Rules; muster roll and register of wages were not maintained, which amounted to violation of Rule 52(2)(a) of the Rules; register of deductions, damages or loss, register of fines and register of advances were not maintained which amounted to violation of Rule 52(2)(c) of the Rules; register of overtime was also not maintained, which amounted to violation of Rule 52(2)(d) of the Rules; abstract of interstate migrant workmen was not displayed, which amounted to violation of Rule 54 of the Rules; and lastly notices showing rates of wages, hours of work, wage period, dates of payment of wages, name and address of the Inspectors having jurisdiction and date of payment to unpaid wages in English, Hindi and in any language understood by majority of the workers at work -site were not displayed, which amounted to violation of Rule 55(1)(i) of the Rules. An inspection report -cum -show cause notice bearing No. LV31(1)/2012 -15MW dated 24/01/2012 incorporating all the said breaches was prepared and served on the accused through registered post A.D. The accused submitted compliance report dated 20/03/2012.