J.P. SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three applications relating to the same parties and involving common points for decision are taken up together for disposal by this common order.

(2.) THREE separate cases were instituted by the Opposite -Party No. 2 in his capacity of being the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), who on his inspection of the Establishment of the accused persons, on different dates, had found that the accused persons were getting the work of loading coal at the loading point of the various collieries and of transportation of the coal from the loading point to the local sale point, through workers engaged in the contract through private transport agencies, though the engagement of contract labour for such work is prohibited by the Notification No. S.O. 2063 dated 2.7.1998 issued by the Ministry of Labour of the Government of India and is in violation of Sec. 10 of the Contract Labour (Regular and Abolition) Act, 1970, and, as such, the accused persons are liable to be prosecuted and punished for the offence under Sec. 24 of the said Act. On receipt of the individual petitions of complaint as filed by the Opposite -Party No. 2 against the present petitioner, the learned Court below took cognizance of the offence under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 directing the petitioner to appear and face trial in each of the cases. It is against the orders of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate that the present applications have been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) TO butteress his argument on this point learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment of the Single Bench of the Patna High Court, passed in Cr. M.P. No. 274 of 2004 and to another judgment in the case of Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (1986) LABI. C. 2003, wherein, it was held that the contravention of any prohibition contained in any Notification, issued by the Central Government contemplated under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, would not attract the penal provisions of the Act and the remedy for the Prosecution may be elsewhere in a different manner in an administrative way affecting the licence etc. It was further observed that the provisions of Sec. 10 (1) of the Act cannot be substituted for Sec. 35 of the Act at all. Another recent judgment of this Court passed in Cr. M.P. No. 486 of 2004, has also been cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, who argues that the facts of the instant case are 'identical to the facts of the above referred case.