S. P. Singh and Gurusharan Sharma and jj. JJ.

1. -the petitioners herein have impugned the order passed by the Chief Judicial magistrate, Dhanbad, in C. L. A. Case No.21 of 1977 dated 28.10.1977, whereby cognizance has been taken of the offences under Sections 23 and 24 of the Contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and process has been issued against both the petitioners. Petitioner no.1 herein is M/s Indian Iron and Steel company Limited, an incorporated Company, and its Chief executive (Collieries), Chasnala Colliery, namely, Satya Pal Puri, is petitioner no.2.

2. The impugned order was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the complaint made to him by the Labour Enforcement Officer alleging that the petitioners had engaged 160 contract labour for overburden removal through its Contractor, M/s continental Construction Pvt. Ltd. , despite the prohibition contained in the notification issued by the Government of India dated 1st February, 1975, under Sec.10 (1) of the Act.

3. The petitioners contend that the violation of any notification issued by the appropriate Government under Sec.10 of the Act does not amount to an offence, because in terms of Sec.23, unless there is a contravention of any provision of the Act or of any rule made thereunder prohibiting, restricting or regulating the employment of contract labour, no offence is committed. According to the petitioners, a notification under Sec.10 of the Act is not a provision of the Act nor can it be equated with the rules made under the Act. Consequently, an infringement of a notification under section 10 of the Act does not attract the penal provision contained in Sec.23 thereof. Additionally, petitioner no.2 contends that without any enquiry whatsoever, he has been made an accused in the case in a mechanical manner, though he was not responsible for the engagement of contract labour. It is his case that even if an offence has been committed, he cannot be prosecuted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court and reliance was placed upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in M/s indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. V/s. State of bihar (1986 LIC 2003 : 1986 PUR 270)holding that violation of a notification issued under Sec.10 (1) of the Act did not amount to an offence under the Act. The teamed Single Judge before whom this criminal miscellaneous petition came up for hearing doubted the correctness of the earlier decision of this Court rendered by a single Judge and, therefore, referred the matter to a Division Bench. That is how the instant criminal Miscellaneous petition has been placed before a Division Bench for disposal.

5. The system of employment of contract labour lends itself to various abuses, and consequently the question of its abolition had been under the consideration of the Government for a long period. After much deliberation a general consensus emerged that the system should be abolished whereever possible are practicable, end that in cases where this system could no be abolished altogether, the working condtions of the contract labour should be regulated so as to ensure payment of wages and provision of essential amenities. It was with this object in view that a bill was introduced in the Parliament aiming at the abolition of contract labour in respect of such categories, as may be notified by the appropriate Government in the light of certain criteria that have been laid down, and at regulating service conditions of contract labour where abolition is not possible. The title of the Act itself indicates that it is an act to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain establishment and to provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and for matters connected therewith. The Supreme Court in B. H. L. Workers association V/s. Union of India [1985 (1)S. C. C.630] not