BASANTA KUMAR MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but interesting question whether prosecution of petitioner under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short 'the Act') is justified arises in this revision application.

(2.) BACKGROUND facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are as follows: Petitioner is the Director in charge of Security and Detective Services (India) Limited. The said concern is hereinafter referred to as the 'contractor'. According to the prosecution, contractor and consequentially petitioner was liable for prosecution in terms of Section 24 of the Act. Prosecution report was submitted by the Assistant Labour Officer and Inspector under the Act alleging that the petitioner entered into an agreement with Talcher Thermal Power Station Expansion Main Building Division, Talcher (described herinafter as 'principal employer') for engagement of security guards; these guards were contract labour and therefore, contractor was required to take licence under the Contract Act, and having not done so violated Section 12 of the Act.

(3.) PETITIONER refuted the allegation on the ground that the Act had no application to it and therefore, the prescculion as launched was not maintainable in law. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talcher (in short 's. D. J. M. ') and the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal did not accept the petitioner's contention and held that the Act had application and therefore, conviction under Section 24 was in order.