S RAM MOHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner (described as 'accused' also) calls in question legality and validity of the proceeding initiated against him for alleged viola tion of certain provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short, the 'Act').

(2.) A complaint was filed by the Laboar Enforce ment Officer (Central Paradeep) (hereinafter re ferred to as 'complainant') before the Sub-divi sional Judicial Magistrate, Balasore (in short, 'SDJM') alleging that since there was violation of provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act, action was to be taken against the petitioner. It was alleged that the establishment of the accused-petitioner was inspected on 21-9-1991, when it was noticed that 36 contract labours in addition to truck drivers and helpers were employed, besides 70 direct employ ees/persons and during the course of inspection certain irregularities were noticed. Acting on the complaint cognizance was taken by the learned SDJM and summons was issued to the petitioner to answer to the charge of offence under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the proceeding was misconceived and the issue of summons as done is misconceived. The establishment if any with regard to which the inspection was claimed to have been made is Indian Oi1 Corporation Limited (here inafter referred to as 'company'), a corporate body. In respect of an inspection allegedly made on 20-9 -1991 a proceeding has been initiated against Shri D. Bhattacharyya, Plant Manager, ISP describing him as the principal employer. Interestingly, similar com plaint was made against petitioner, who is Deputy General Manager (LPG) describing him as the Prin cipal employer within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act, in respect of the alleged violation during inspection on 21-9-1991.