The central legal point established in the judgment is that a person cannot be held liable as a contractor under the Contract Labour Act without sufficient evidence, and the duty of the establishment and authorities to provide accurate information and perform their duties diligently.

ORDER :

1. 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 punished, rather for such default Contractor (Service Provider) namely Mahindra Logistics Ltd (in short MLL), a Registered Company under the Companies Act for execution of service agreement dated 24th March, 2017 executed between MIFPL and MLL, is answerable for such default, whereas, petitioner had been an employee of MLL w.e.f. 21.10.2009 to 31.8.2018 and his last designation was Chief Financial Officer and he had signed the agreement dated 24th March, 2017 as an employee of MLL which never permits the Labour Inspector or MIFPL to substitute the petitioner in place of Contractor (Service Provider) MLL for prosecuting him instead of MLL for liability under the Act and Rules framed thereunder.

3. Petitioner has placed on record copies of Registration Certificate of Incorporation of MLL issued by Assistant Registrar of Companies Maharashtra; Relieving Letter indicating relieving of petitioner from MLL on 31.8.2018; a Certificate certifying the employment of petitioner with MLL w.e.f. 21.10.2009 to 31.8.2018 with last designation as Chief Financial Officer and Services Agreement between MIFPL and MLL to substantiate his version. Copy of complaints dated 31.10.2017, communication dated 11.10.2017 issued by Labour Inspector to petitioner on the address of MLL and impugned order dated 15.3.2019 have also been placed on record along with other orders.

4. In response to petition, stand of respondent is that on inspection of two units of MIFPL on 9.10.2017, lapses were found with respect to labour supplied by contractor and the establishment i.e. MIFPL had informed the name of petitioner as contractor and, therefore, notice was issued to petitioner to produce the relevant record for which the contractor was responsible to maintain under the Act and Rules framed thereunder, but petitioner had failed to comply with the provisions of Act and Rules and, therefore, complaint has rightly been filed against the petitioner leading to initiation of criminal proceedings against him before the concerned Magistrate.

5. Some documents i.e. requests made by MIFPL for amending their Registration Certificate with respect to details of contractor have been placed on record wherein petitioner Nikhil Nayak has been reflected as contractor for providing contract labour for the purpose of loading/unloading. During hearing complete record was produced and photocopies of similar requests of MIFPL indicating the petitioner Nikhil Nayak as contractor w.e.f. 1.4.2017 to 31.3.2020 have been placed on record.

6. In response to query by Court, it was informed that list of contractors supplied by MIFPL was never verified by Labour Inspector and information supplied in Annexure-1 with the requests made by MIFPL for amendment of Certificate of Registration under Rule 18(i) of Rules along with Form