Back
2014 Supreme(Jhk) 484
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
R.R. PRASAD, J.
Mr. David Hudson - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar now Jharkhand - Opp. Parties
Cr. Misc. No. 774 of 2000(R)
Decided on: 10.4.2014
For the Petitioner:M/s Rajiv Ranjan & V.K. Trivedi, Advocates
For the State : Mr. S.S. Sahay, A.P.P
For the O.P. No. 2 :Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate
Specific allegations of responsibility for the day-to-day affairs of the company are required to prosecute an officer of a company under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act.
Headnote:
Contract Labour - Quashing of Order - Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act - Section 25
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Managing Director of a company, filed for quashing of an order taking cognizance of the offence under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act against him. The company was found to have contravened several provisions of the Act and Rules during an inspection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no allegation that the petitioner was responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company, and therefore, the prosecution against the petitioner could not be maintained.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, as the Managing Director, could be prosecuted under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act without specific allegations of responsibility for the company's affairs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 25 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, which stipulates that if an officer of a company is made accused, there should be specific allegations that the officer was responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner.
By Court - Heard the parties.
2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 10.7.1997 passed in C.L.A. Case No. 299 of 1997 whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offence under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act has been taken against the petitioner.
3. It is the case of the complainant that when the complainant-Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Jharia, Dhanbad made inspection of the establishment of the petitioner-company, which has been engaged by TISCO for rendering security services, following irregularities were found:-
“i) Registrar (sic Register) of persons employed was not kept at an office of the nearest convenient building within the precincts of the work place or at a place within a radious of 3 KMs by the contractor. Breach of Rule-75 read with Rule-80(1) of the said Rules.
ii) Muster Roll and register of wages were not kept at an office of the nearest convenient building within the precincts of work place or at a place within a radious of 3 KMs. by the contractor. Breach of Rule-78 (1)(a)(i).
iii) Register of Advance, Register of Fine and Register of deduction for damage or loss were not kept at an office by the contractor. Rule-78 (1)(a)(ii).
iv) Register of overtime was not kept at an office or the nearest convenient building within the precincts of the work place or at a place within a radious of 3 KMs. by the contractor. Breach of Rule-78 (1)(a)(iii) read with Rule-80(1).
v) The following notices were not displayed at the work-spot in English & Hindi by the contractor as required under Rule-81(1)(i).
vi) (i) Rates of wages (ii) Hours of work. (iii) Date of payment (iv) Wage period. (v) Date of payment of unpaid wages (vi) Name & address of the Inspector having jurisdiction over the establishment i.e. Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad and the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Jharia at Dhanbad.
vii) A notice showing wage period, place and time of disbursement of wages were not displayed by the contractor at the place of work and a copy of its had not been sent to the Principal Employer i.e. Manager, Jamadoba washery, TISCO, Dhanbad under acknowledgment as required under Rule-71.
viii) An abstract from the Act and Rules framed there under in the form approved by the CLC(C), New Delhi contractor in English & Hindi. Rule-75.
ix) Copies of the notices were not sent by the contractor to the Inspector having jurisdiction over the establishment i.e. Labour Enforcement Officer (C), Jharia at Dhanbad in English & Hindi in contravention of Rule 81(2) of the said Rules.
x) Employment Card were not issued at all within 3 days from the date of employment of the workers by the contractor as required under Rule-76(i) of the said Rules.
x) Non-issue of wages slips by the contractor to the workers concerned at least a day prior to disbursement of wages. Breach of Rule-78 (1)(b).
xii) First-aid facilities have not been provided as per Section 1 read with Rule 58 to 62 of the said Act & Rules.
xiii) The contractor has failed to provide Rest Room to the workers as required under Rule-41 of the said Rules.”
4. Thus, it has been alleged that the accused person having contravened the said provision has made himself liable to be prosecuted under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. On filing complaint when cognizance of the offence was taken vide order dated 10.7.1997, that order was challenged to be bad.
5. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner happens to be the Managing Director of the company known as Group-4, Securitas India (P) Ltd., still he has been made accused in absence of any accusation that the petitioner was in charge of, or responsible to for day to day business of the company and in absence of such allegation if the petitioner is being prosecuted, he can be said to have been prosecuted on account of vicarious liability which is not permissible and thereby the order taking c
