TARIT KUMAR DUTTA ROY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 03.05.2000 whereby cognizance for the offence under Sections 23/24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in Case No. C/7 89/2000 against the accused persons including the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts in short are that the complaint was filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer (C), Chaibasa in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa against the three accused persons including the petitioner alleging that he being the Enforcement Officer in the capacity of Inspector appointed under Section 28 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 inspected the Mines in question where he found that the work of raising of Iron Ore, Loading, Transporting, Levelling of Iron Ore on B.G. Wagons, Drilling and Blasting in Iron Ore Mines was being done by the contract labour. According to the allegations made in the complaint, those nature of work was kept under the prohibited category of work and that could not have been done through Labour contract. In this view of the matter, the accused persons named in the complaint committed offence of Sections 23/24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

(3.) SECTION 2(g) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 defines 'Principal Employer'. According to Section 2(g)(iii) of the said Act, in a mine, only the owner or agent of the mine and where a person has been named as the manager of the mine, the persons so named can come within the meaning of Principal Employer.