JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. P. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent No.1.

2. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner, namely, Shri Kaushik Baruah has prayed for quashing the C.R. Case No.4152/2013, under Section 4/6 of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1979 Act”) read with Section 25 of the 1979 Act and the order dated 28.05.2015 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.(S) No.1, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, in C.R. Case No.4152/2013.

3. It is to be noted here that the above-noted case has been registered on the basis of one complaint lodged by Shri Prasenjit Talukdar, Labour Inspector cum Inspector under the 1979 Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

4. The background facts leading to filing of the present petition is adumbrated herein below:-

“On 27.08.2013, the respondent No.2, Shri Prasenjit Talukdar, Labour Inspector cum Inspector under the 1979 Act, had visited the work site, located at Anil Plaza-II, G.S. Road, Guwahati and found that one Kaushik Baruah is executing a civil interior work of his outlet “Mocha” (to be opened) by engaging 9 inter-state migrant workers, whose names were being enclosed in a separate sheet, through M/s K.R.M. Interiors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi (Contractor) without registering the establishment as ‘Principal Employer? as required under Section 4 of the 1979 Act. Thereafter, the complainant had issued one notice to the petitioner on 30.11.2013, and pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner had filed his reply. But, having not been satisfied with the reply, the respondent No.2 had lodged the aforesaid complaint before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati.

Upon the said complaint the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offences and issued process to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner had entered appearance and filed a petition, being petition No. 142, for dismissal of the complaint, on the ground that on the relevant date of inspection, the restaurant was not inaugurated and no business was carried out and as such the restaurant was not an ‘establishment? with the meaning of definition of section 2 (d) of the said Act of 1979, and that the petitioner has engaged one contractor for interior decoration of the said restaurant and the said contractor has employed the migrant workers.

But, after hearing the parties the learned court below, vide impugned order dated 28.05.2015, had dismissed the petition and explained the particulars of offence to the petitioner under Section 4/6 and Section 25 of the 1979 Act and on to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the learned Court below has posted the case for evidence.”

5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition mainly on the ground that no offence under the aforesaid sections are made out even after a bare perusal of the complaint petition as on the relevant date of inspection, the restaurant ‘Mocha? was not inaugurated and no business was carried out and as such the restaurant was not an establishment with the meaning of definition of section 2 (d) of the said Act of 1979, and that the petitioner has engaged one contractor, namely, M/s K.R.M. Interiors Pvt. Ltd. of New Delhi to carry out the interior civil works of the restaurant ‘Mocha?, and the said contractor had employed the migrant workers, and on that count and also in view of the law laid down by Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, specially on point No.(c), (e) and (g) of the aforesaid decision, the present complaint is not at all maintainable and therefore, it is c