SANAT KUMAR ROY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order of cognizance dated 9-12-1993 passed by Chief Judicial Magitrate, Hazaribagh and the entire criminal proceeding relates to Case No. G-395/93 pending before S. D. J. M., Hazaribagh.

(2.) The fact in short for the purpose of this application is that the complainant is the Labour Superintendent, Hazaribagh filed the aforesaid complaint case under Sections 23/24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (to be called hereinafter only Act) as against the Managing Director, Bihar Alloy Steel Ltd. which is a registered Company having Head Office at Calcutta but the factory is situated in Balkudra, District-Hazaribagh. It has been alleged that on 28-7-1993 the aforesaid factory was inspected by Deputy Commissioner, Labour, Hazaribagh who is the Inspector under the said Act and it was found that 15 contractors who were doing work and under them there were 425 labourers though according to the registration six contractors were registered having total number of workers as 368 only and it was further detected that change in the Board of Directors of the Company was not notified to the licensing authority and also in the register maintained by the contractors for payment of wages to the labourers were not certified by the principal employer and as such a show-cause notice dated 29-7-1993 was issued to the Managing Director for compliance of the defects but the principal employer had not removed all the defects. So the complaint was instituted under the said Act and the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 9-12-1993. The petitioner is admitted Managing Director of the Company filed this application for quashing the criminal proceeding mainly of the ground that the petitioner is no doubt a Managing Director but he is posted at Calcutta and not at the site and he is not responsible for supervising day to day work and further he is not the principal employer of the factory rather the factory Manager who had been notified as such and approved by the factory Inspector, is actually the principal employer. Moreover there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in the capacity of Managing Director that he is responsible for day to day affairs and violation of the provision of the Act and further in the complaint petition itself it has not been mentioned that the complainant has been declared Inspector under the said Act and as such he has a right to institute the complaint. On the aforesaid ground the prayer was made for quashing the entire criminal prosecution.

(3.) On behalf of O. P. that is the Labour Superintendent, Hazaribagh a counter-affidavit has also been filed and it was submitted that actually the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Inspector under the Act inspected the factory situates within the District of Hazaribagh on 28-7-1993 and found the aforesaid irregularities as mentioned in the complaint petition and then the complaint was filed and the complainant is also Inspector under Act and as such he is competent to file the complaint. Further more it was sumbitted that the petitioner being the Managing Director of the Company under Section 25 of the Act is responsible for violation of the provision of the Act and as such criminal liability, if any, also lies with the petitioner who is the Managing Director. Accordingly, it was submitted that the petition for quashing may be dismissed.