LAWS(J&K)-2002-5-27

S S PURI Vs. STATE

Decided On May 02, 2002
S S Puri Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr. Jagat Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Mr. S.S. Nanda, learned advocate for the respondent, in extenso.

(2.) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 26 -5 -2000 propounded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby prayer for dropping the proceedings earlier rejected before the Trial Court [Judicial Magistrate (Sub -Registrar), Jammu] vide order dated 18 -10 -1998, stood declined.

(3.) FACTUAL matrix of the case in resuming relevant for the disposal of this Revision is that, a complaint under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as Act") came to be initiated before the Trial Court in alleging that provisions of the Act, namely, Rules 74 81 (1)(i) and 81 (3) have been violated by the accused in having failed to maintain the relevant record of the Contractors, non -submission of return in Form VI -B and non -display of notes on the conspicuous place of the establishment showing rates of wages, hours of work, wage period, date of payment, name and address of the inspector having jurisdiction and date of payment of unpaid wages, in English and Hindi. It was further contended that the despite the delivery of inspection report dated 16 -7 -1992 prepared at work site, the breaches as directed were not rectified and failure to show satisfactory compliance had rendered the accused liable for legal action under Section 24 of the Act. It was during the currency of proceedings that an application came to be initiated before the Trial Court by the accused petitioner for dimissal of the complaint in assailing its maintainability on the ground that petroleum products stored by the Indian Oil Depots and managed and controlled by Indian Oil Corporation were transported for distribution at various destinations. That the crew working on the trucks are not covered under the provisions of the Act because such provisions are not applicable to the petitioners. It was also stated that the crew of the transporters are not under the control of the Corporation and, therefore, cannot be treated to the workmen for the purpose of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. That the Indian Oil Corporation has only engaged a transporter for transportation without there being any agreement for engagement of contract labour. It is also plended that neither crew of the transporter nor the contract labour are covered by the Act being not on the staff of the Indian Oil Corporation. That even the Indian Oil Depot does not fall within the expression of establishment defined under the Act. That the Indian Oil Corporation is not the principal employer of the drivers of the Contractor engaged on the trucks by the transporter for supply and distribution of the petroleum products and the complaint, having been filed in violation of the provisions of the Act, cannot proceed.