The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 applies to all entities, including the State, the Government, and their instrumentalities, unless expressly or necessarily excluded. A criminal prosecution for offenses punishable with a fine can be initiated and proceeded with against the Central Government or its company.

( 1 ) A criminal prosecution has been initiated under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation Abolition) Act, 1970 against a Government Company and its Chairman and Managing Director, its Construction Superintendent and its Executive Engineer. The Company and the Officers, but not the Chairman and Managing Director, have moved this Court against the order of issuance of process and have urged that the prosecution ought to be quashed. For the reasons stated hereunder, we decline to do so.

( 2 ) IT has been urged that since the accused company is a Government company whose entire share capital has been subscribed mainly by the Central Government and also by some State Governments, it is very much an instrumentality of the State or the Government and a criminal prosecution against such a one must fail as the State or the Government cannot be criminally prosecuted.

( 3 ) THE Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 does not exclude the State or the Government or any of its instrumentalities from the operation of the Act, either expressly or by necessary implication. The English Common Law doctrine that the Crown is not bound by a Statute save by express provision or inevitable implication, was applied in India by the Privy Council even as late as in 1947 in Province of Bombay vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay (AIR 1947 Privy Council 34) and also by the Supreme Court in 1960 in Director of Rationing and Distribution vs. Corporation of Calcutta (AIR 1960 SC 1355), but has thereafter been squarely overthrown by the Supreme Court in the Nine-Judge Bench decision in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs vs. Corporation of Calcutta (AIR 1967 SC 997) ). In fact, that was also the consistent view of this Court as would appear from the Division Bench decisions in Corporation of Calcutta, vs. Bhupal Chandra Sinha (AIR 1950 Calcutta 421), in Corporation of Calcutta vs. Director of Rationing and Distribution (AIR 1955 Calcutta 282) and in State of West Bengal vs. Corporation of Calcutta (69 Calcutta Weekly Notes, 1167 ). It should be noted that while the decision of this Court in Corporation of Calcutta vs. Director of Rationing and Distribution (supra, AIR 1955 Calcutta 282) was reversed by the Supreme Court in Director of Rationing and Distribution vs. Corporation of Calcutta (supra, AIR 1960 SC 1355), the decision of this Court in State of West Bengal vs. Corporation of Calcutta (supra, 68 Calcutta Weekly Notes 1167) has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in that Nine-Judge Bench decision, overruling its earlier decision in Director of Rationing and Distribution (supra, AIR 1960 SC 1355 ).

( 4 ) THE Government or the State, as settled by the Courts beyond the pale of any doubt or dispute, can be reasonably classified from the rest and, therefore, any law for the State or the Government different from that applicable to the rest is not hit by the Equality Clause of our Constitution. A legislation, therefore, may exclude or exempt the State from its operation :but unless so done by express enunciation or irresistible implication, all our general legislations would apply to all and sundry and no exemption can be claimed by the State qua State.

( 5 ) IT is true that the punishment provided for the infringment of the provisions of the Act in question are, as usual with the general penal provisions, imprisonment and fine. it is obvious that the State or the Government cannot be put in prison and thus punished with imprisonment and it is accordingly urged that any penal statute providing for such punishment would not apply to State by inevitable implication. Even in respect of penal provisions providing for imposition of fine, it was urged before the Nine-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs vs. Corporation of Calcutta (supra, at 1008) that as the fine imposed on the State would merge in the Consolidated Fund of the State itself