ORDER :

These two petitions being identical in nature, involving identical questions of facts and law, are being decided by this common order.

2. Petitioner, an accused in cases Nos. 21/3 of 2018 and 61/3 of 2018, both titled as State of HP vs. Nikhil Nayak filed by Labour Inspector under Sections 28(3), 29(1), 35(2)(n) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) and Rules 75, 78(2), (a), (e), (d), 80(4) and 82(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1978 (in short “the Rules”) pending adjudication in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nalagarh, District Solan, has approached this Court for quashing the complaints and consequential trials arising thereto, mainly on the ground that he had never been a Contractor or Sub Contractor under the Act for supplying contract labour for any work of establishment namely M/s Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (in short ‘MIFPL’), (former Cadbury India Limited), at any point of time and, therefore, for any lapse in supplying the labour or maintaining the record related thereto under the Act or Rules framed thereunder, petitioner is not liable to be prosecuted and punis