The main legal point established is that under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, officers of a company can only be prosecuted if the company is made accused, and specific allegations are required for initiating criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners in Cr. M.P. Nos.326 of 2015 and 2624 of 2014 and Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel along with Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No.2894 of 2014, Mr. Md. Hatim, Mr. V.S. Sahay and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.Ps. for the State and Mr. Prasant Pallav, learned A.S.G.I. for opposite party no.2.

2. In all these petitions, common question of facts and laws are involved and that is why all these petitions have been heard together with the consent of the parties.

3. In Cr. M.P. No.326 of 2015, petitioner no.1 is the General Manager of B&K Area of Central Coalfields Limited and petitioner no.2 is the Project Officer of the Central Coalfields Limited, in Cr. M.P. No.2624 of 2014, the petitioner is the Director (Technical) of the Central Coalfields Limited and in Cr. M.P. No.2894 of 2014, the petitioner Krishna Kamal Gangopadhyay is representing M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited.

4. In all these petitions, the prayer is made for quashing the entire criminal prosecution arising out of G. Case No.09/14 corresponding to TR No.2561 of 2014 including the order dated 20.02.2014, whereby, cognizance of an offence under Section 23 and 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (herein after to be referred to as the Act) against the petitioners.

5. The opposite party no.2 lodged complaint dated 24.01.2014 alleging therein the complainant is the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Koderma and an Inspector under Sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Act having jurisdiction over the establishment of the accused persons. The opposite party no.2 inspected the establishment of Giridih Project of M/s Central Coalfields Limited on 29.10.2013 and observed that in contravention of the notification No. S.O. 2063 dated 02.07.1988 issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India the accused persons had deployed M/s Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited for doing contract work of hiring of HEMM for removal of OB including blast hole drilling including blasting etc. and extraction and transportation of coal from Kabribad Open Cast Mine to dump yard at Giridih Project of Central Coalfields Limited. The said offences were recorded in the inspection report cum show-cause notice dated 13.11.2013 duly served on the accused persons, but their replies were not satisfactory. As the accused persons contravened the provisions of the Act/Rules have rendered themselves liable for prosecution under Section 23 and 24 of the Act.

6. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Cr.M.P. Nos. 326 of 2015 and 2624 of 2014 submits that the petitioners are the officers of the Central Coalfields Limited and they are not the principal employer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g)(iii) of the Act and mechanically these petitioners have been made accused. He further submits that the Central Coalfields Limited is not made accused and in absence of company, the liability cannot be imposed upon the petitioners, who are Director, General Manager and Project Officer of the Company. To buttress his argument on the point of employer, he relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Swapan Ganguly v. Union of India, reported in 2006 (3) JLJR 1.

7. Paragraphs 13 and 15 of the said judgment are quoted herein below :

“13. From bare reading of the above provision of the Act, it is clear that liability is fastened on a person was held to be in charge of the office when the offence was detected and for others the burden is caused upon the prosecution to show that it was with their consent, or connivance, or that the commission of the offence was attributable on account of their negligent and such negligent, connivance or consent must be shown in respect of any director, manager, managing agent or any other officer of the company, who were not in charge of the office alleged to the pl