TISCO (TUBE DIVISION) Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the five Cr. Misc. Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been taken up together, arising out of common question of law and almost on similar facts.

(2.) THE prosecution story in short was that the complainant/opposite party No. 2 Rajesh Prasad, Labour Superintendent -cum -Inspector under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 had visited in the factory premises of Tube Division of M/s. TISCO Ltd. Jamshedpur on 24.12.2004 and observed that the different contractors were getting the work done by the contract labourers in spite of prohibition of employment of contract labourers in the concerned work vide Notification No. 10/F -1 -4050/90 L and E 838 dated 20.12.1991 issued by the Government in the department of Labour Employment and Training under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and thereby the petitioners, who were common in all the five petitions aforesaid, violated the provision of Section 10 of the said Act.

(3.) IN all the above five complaint cases instituted at the Instance of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 herein, it was alleged that all the petitioners including the petitioner No. 4 S.M. Hussain, Executive Incharge and Principal employer had been getting the work done through various contractors in which the contract labourers were employed in contravention of the Notification No. 10/F -1 -4050/90 L and E 838 dated 20.12.1991 issued by the Government under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 which prohibited the employment of contract labourers relating to the work of storage, cutting, carrying, loading/unloading of the rejected materials declared by the company as also the work of electrical maintenance of Indian Tube Company Ltd.