LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER Vs. T N JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Labour Enforcement Officer, Chandrapur, has preferred this appeal challenging the acquittal of respondent No.1 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chimur, for offence punishable under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

(2.) THE Labour Enforcement Officer, under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, had carried out an inspection of a mine of which respondent No.1 T.N. Jha was the principal employer. He found several irregularities, which he conveyed by letter dated 24-11-2002, calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why legal action under Section 23 or 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 should not be taken against the respondent. The respondent sent a compliance report on 11-12-2002 stating that the necessary compliance was done. The appellant, however, preferred a complaint before the learned Magistrate, who issued a process and upon respondent's appearance, explained particulars of the offence punishable under Section 24 of the said Act to the respondent. Since the respondent pleaded not guilty, he was tried by the learned Magistrate. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) was examined as the sole witness. Upon considering the evidence tendered, the learned Magistrate held that the complainant had proved that the respondent was the principal employer and had failed to comply with the requirements of Rules 19(2), 74, 81(1)(i), 81(2), 81(3) and 82(2) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. He, however, held that contravention of these rules did not entail punishment of the respondent for offence punishable under Section 24 of the said Act and, therefore, proceeded to acquit the respondent on the ground that mens rea was essential for attracting culpability, as held by this Court in the case of S.B. Deshmukh v. The State and another, reported in 1986 Lab.I.C. 204, since mens rea was not excluded by the statute, or by necessary implication. Being aggrieved by acquittal of the respondent pronounced by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chimur, the complainant had preferred this appeal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Magistrate was in error in importing the concept of mens rea in an offence, which was complete by failure to comply with the statutory requirements. She submitted that the breaches in the instant case attracted penal provisions of Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Therefore, according to her, the learned Magistrate should not have relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of S.B. Deshmukh v. The State and another, cited supra, which pertained to an offence punishable under Section 23 of the said Act.