JUDGMENT :

Shekhar B. Saraf, J.:

1. The instant criminal revisional application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner company seeks quashing of the proceedings being Complaint Case No. CR-138 and 139 of 2002 pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri initiated by the Opposite Party No. 1 purportedly under Section 36 of the Plantation Labour Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) and West Bengal Plantation Labour Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) framed thereunder.

Facts:

2. The allegation in the complaint case is that the accused persons being associated with the administration of Kathalguri Tea Estate and having control over the affairs of the Tea Estate are “Employers”, in relation to that Tea Estate, have violated the provisions of Plantation Labour Act, 1951 and the West Bengal Plantation Labour Rules, 1956. According to the complaint, the petitioner have violated the W.B. Plantation (W.O.) Rules, 1979, namely:

As mentioned in Complaint case no. 139 of 2002

(a) Rule 4 – Non appointment of Labour Welfare Officer.

(b) Rule 22 (5) – Non-appointment of a qualified Medical Practitioner in the garden.

(c) Rule 38 – Not supplying clean clothes to the crèche staff for use while on duty in the crèche.

As mentioned in Complaint case no. 138 of 2002

(d) Rule 47 – Not constructing house at least 8% of the resident workers.

(e) Rule 49 (1) – Not supplying wholesome drinking water within a reasonable distance of housing accommodation of labour quarters.

(f) Rule 52 (1) – Not executing necessary repair of the labour quarters.

3. It is alleged that the inspector under Plantation Labour Act, 1951 designated as Assistant Labour Commissioner (Plantation) found the above irregularities on January 7, 2002 when he visited the Tea Estate. Thereafter, it is alleged that the accused persons have committed the offences mentioned above and are liable to be punished under Section 36 of the Plantation Labour Act, 1951 for contravention of the provisions of the said Act and the Rules. The criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance of violation of the Rules was challenged by the petitioner and upon hearing the present petitioner this Court was pleased to pass an order of stay of all further proceedings pending before the Learned Magistrate.

Submissions:

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tea Estate had a full-fledged manager and the affairs of the Tea Estate were under control of the Manager of the said Tea Estate. Therefore, the petitioner company cannot be treated to be an employer under Section 2(e) of the Plantation Labour Act, 1951 which defines - “employer” when used in relation to a plantation, means the person who has the ultimate control over the affairs of the plantation, and where the affairs of any plantation are entrusted to any other person (whether called a managing agent, manager, superintendent or by any other name) such other person shall be deemed to be the employer in relation to that plantation. For this argument, the petitioner relies on the judgment passed in S.K. Mehra vs. State of Assam reported in (1991) 2 Gau LR 356. Relevant extract of the judgement is presented below:

“5. I have heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the-petitioner. Mr. Goswami submits that for violation of the provision of the Act the employer can be prosecuted. An employer has been defined in section 2(e) of the Act. According to Mr. Goswami, from the terms of section 2(e), it is clear that only such person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the plantation is an employer except in case the affairs of any plantation are entrusted to any other person where such other person may be deemed to be the employer in relation to the plantation. According to the Labour Inspector as well as the sanctioning authority there was a Manager of the Tea Estate. Admittedly, he was looking after the affairs of the plantation. He may be termed as a person to w