Back
2017 Supreme(Gau) 990
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HITESH KUMAR SARMA, J.
State of Assam – Petitioner
Versus
Mr. Rajeev Takru, Director, M/S Mcleod Russel India Ltd.- Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 790, 828, 831-834 of 2015
Decided on : 22-12-2017
For the Petitioner: Ms. S Jahan, Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
For the Respondent:Mr. D Baruah, Ms. B Das, Mr. N Upadhyay, Advocates.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S. 482 – Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 397/401 - Labour Plantation Act, 1951 -Quash of Criminal proceedings – Cognizance of the offence - management failed to appoint whole time Medical Officer as per the said P.L. Rules - Violation of various provisions under the Labour Plantation Act, 1951 – Held, complaint contains specific allegations against all the respondents that they are persons having ultimate control over the affairs of the plantation. Such an allegation being a question of fact would be subject matter of proof and the respondents would be at liberty to prove during trial that affairs of the plantation have been entrusted to any other person (whether called a managing agent, manager, superintendent or by any other name) and hence such other person is to be treated as the employer in relation to that plantation. The respondents are liable to be impleaded as respondents by virtue of their holding the Office of Directors in the respective Companies – Criminal petitions allowed
Criminal Petition No. 790 of 2015
This criminal petition has been preferred, under Section 482, read with Sections 397/401 of the Cr.P.C., for setting aside and quashing the judgment and order, dated 08-06-2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, in Criminal Revision No. 47(2) of 2015, setting aside the order, dated 20-04-2015, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia as well as the order, dated 30-04-2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, in CR Case No. 33C/2015, for violation of various provisions under the Labour Plantation Act, 1951 and the Labour Plantation Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘P.L. Act’ and ‘P.L. Rules’ respectively).
2. The opposite party No. 2 in this case, Labour Inspector, filed a complaint, being CR Case No. 33C/2015, before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia against the Manager of Samdang Tea Estate and the Director of Mcleod Russel India Ltd. For violation of Sections 14 and 15 of the P.L. Act, read with Rules 55 and 59 of the P.L. Rules.
3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case to the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Tinsukia, for disposal, who, in turn, issued summons against both the accused.
4. The opposite party No. 1, the Director of M/S Mcleod Russel India Ltd., filed a criminal revision before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, vide Crl. Rev. No. 47(2)/2015, for setting aside the order, 20-04-2015, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, taking cognizance of CR Case No. 33C/2015 aforesaid, on the ground that he is not an ‘employer’ as defined under Section 2(e) of the P.L. Act; rather, the Manager looks after the day-to-day affairs of the Tea Estate. Therefore, he could not be prosecuted.
5. The criminal Revision was disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, holding that the petitioner was the Director of the Tea Estate and was stationed at Kolkata and as such, he had no control over the day-to-day affairs of the plantation and remanded the case to the learned trial Court with directions to the complainant to implead the proper person, who looks after the day to day affairs and management of the concerned Tea Garden and to proceed in accordance with law.
Criminal Petition No. 828 of 2015
6. This criminal petition has been preferred, under Section 482, read with Sections 397/401 of the Cr.P.C., for setting aside and quashing the judgment and order, dated 30-05-2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, in Criminal Revision No. 38(2) of 2015, setting aside the order, dated 21-04-2015, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia as well as the order, dated 21-04-2015, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, in CR Case No. 35C/2015, for violation of various provisions under the P.L. Act and P.L. Rules.
7. The opposite party No. 2, is the Labour Inspector filed a complaint, being CR Case No. 35C/2015, before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, against the Manager of Mahakali Tea Estate and the Director of Mcleod Russel India Ltd. For violation of Sections 14 and 15 of the PL Act, read with Rules 55 and 59 of the PL Rules. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia took cognizance of the offence under Section 36 of the P.L. Act and transferred the case to the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Tinsukia, for disposal, who, in turn, issued summons against both the accused-opposite parties.
8. The accused-opposite party No. 1, the Director of M/S Mcleod Russel India Ltd., filed a criminal revision before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, vide Crl. Rev. No. 38(2)/2015, for setting aside the order, 21-04-2015, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, taking cognizance of CR Case No. 35C/2015 aforesaid, on the ground that he is not an ‘employer’ as defi
