ADITYA PURI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner has sought to quash the entire proceeding as well as the order dated 8.9.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2069(M) of 2003 thereby and thereunder cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Sections 23 and 24 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ').

(2.) THE petitioner is the Chief Managing Director of Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank (H.D.F.C. Bank) Mumbai. The Bank has its branch in Exhibition Road, Patna -1. It appears from Annexure -1 a complaint filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Patna that on 10.6.2003 he being appointed as Inspector under the Act, inspected the Branch Office of H.D.F.C. Bank situated at Exhibition Road, Patna and found the employment of workers by the Branch Office in violation of provisions of the Act and its rules. Accordingly, he lodged the complaint case against the petitioner as Principal Employer of the. Branch of the Bank.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for Opposite Party contends that the inspection report (annexure -3) would go to show that apart from employment of nine workmen the Branch of the Bank was also found employing sixty more workmen through contractors during the preceding twelve months and, therefore, this Act is fully applicable to the Branch Office in question. The other submission is that the petitioner being Chief Managing Director is deemed to be the Principal Employer as defined under Sec.2(g) of the Act and hence he is liable to be prosecuted in view of the provisions of Sec.25 of the Act.