NIRMAL BHOGILAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Section 482, cr. P. C. the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated April 27, 1998 passed by SDJM hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. G. 59/1997, whereby he has taken cognizance for the offences under Section 24 of the Contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Complainant's case in brief was that the accused-petitioner is Contractor engaged for design and construction work of "intek well-cum-pump House" for Tenughat Reservior under the integrated Water Supply Scheme. He had employed 20 contract labours. The allegation against the accused is that he did not submit half-yearly return in Form XXIV fcr the year ending December 31, 1997 to the licensing Officer, Hazaribagh even after issuance of show-cause notice to him.

(2.) ON the basis of the said complaint submitted by Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Hazaribagh, Complaint Case No. G 59/1997 was registered by the C. J. M. , hazaribagh under the provisions of Contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (the Act ). The accused-petitioner who is a contractor is named and styled as Batliboi limited through Nirmal Bhogilal, Managing director. The Additional Chief Judicial magistrate, Hazaribagh, vide order dated April 27, 1998 took cognizance of the offence under section 24 of the Act and transferred the case for disposal.

(3.) THE main contention of the petitioner is that he being the Managing Director of a company is not supposed to file half yearly return of the company to the Licensing authority (ALC Central) Hazaribagh. It is alleged that the petitioner had no control or supervision over the contract work of the company. He being the resident of Calcutta was to act as a care of address of the contractor batliboi Limited. It is contended by the petitioner that Batliboi Limited being a company registered under the Companies Act is itself liable for any offence or negligence committed by it. It is therefore, contended that no case is made against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint petition and the Court below has issued process etc. against the contractor and not the petitioner namely, nirmal Bhogilal.