MATTI PANDURANGA RAO ADHIKARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Misc. Nos. 412/93(R) and 413/93(R) were taken up together and this common order will dispose of both these applications. No doubt there was earlier order that these applications 1 will be heard along with Crim. Misc. 5236/92(R) but that case had already been disposed of on 27-8-1993.

(2.) In Crim. Misc. No. 412/93(R), a prayer has been made for quashing the entire criminal prosecution relates to T. R. 673 of 1992 pending in the court of SDJM, Bermo and the complaint case has been filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central as against the petitioner who was at that time project officer at sawong coal washery. There is allegation that this petitioner employed contract labour in the said washery through the contractor, that is, accused No. 2 of the complaint case and, thus, liable to be punished under Section 23 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (to be called as the said Act).

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that admittedly the coal washery is a 'mine' and only the principal employer is liable to be prosecuted in violation of the provisions of the Act and Section 2(g) subclause (3) clearly lays down that in a mine, the owner or agent of the mine where a person has been named as the Manager of the mine, the person so named will be the 'principal employer'. So in view of the definition, it was contended that only the principal employer, meaning thereby the term restricted to only three persons, firstly owner, secondly the agent and also the Manager, if no named, are responsible for violation of any of the provisions of the Act.