CHANDRA KUMAR AHUJA Vs. LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482, of the Cr. P.C. for quashing the entire proceeding bearing C.L.A. No. 44 of 1991 pending in the Court of C.J.M., Dhanbad.

(2.) The fact in short for the purpose of this application is that O.P. No. 1, Le. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Dhanbad filed the aforesaid complaint as against the petitioner as a partner of a firm Le. M/s. C.K. Ahuja and another partner D.K. Ahuja under Sections 23 and 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (to be called here-in-after only the Act). There is allegation that the firm of the petitioner was contractor and had taken construction work of contract from B C.C.L. regarding construction of quarter for the miners. It has also been alleged that the establishment of the Company was inspected by the Labour Enforcement Officer and various irregularities in violation of the Rules and the provision of the Act were detected so the aforesaid complaint was filed.

(3.) In this quashing application the only point raised on behalf of petitioner that actually the petitioner is merely a contractor and doing civil work of construction of the quarter under the B.C.C.L. and he has nothing to do with the coal mining operation and the establishment of the petitioner is not under the control of B.C.C.L. in any way. So the establishment of the petitioner which does not come within the purview of control of the Central Government. In that view of the matter, the State Government is the competent authority so far as the establishment of the petitioner is concerned and the Inspector appointed by the State Government under the said Act is competent to inspect for any of the violation and to institute the criminal case. As such the inspection and institution of the criminal case by the complainant who had been appointed Inspector by the Central Government is without any jurisdiction and illegal and so the criminal case will not proceed. On the other hand it was contended on behalf of O.P. that certainly the B.C.C.L. is doing mining operation in coal and is the principal employer and the petitioner is doing the contract work no doubt civil construction work but for the B.C.C.L. and also in connection with the mining operation work. In that view of the matter, the establishment of the petitioner is to be inspected by the Inspector appointed by the Central Government and so the O.P. is competent to inspect and institute this case.