The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the punishable offense under Section 23 for violation of Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, and the requirement of specific averments to hold individuals liable under Section 25.

JUDGMENT :

This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/2 Case No. 2218 of 2005 including the order dated 08.06.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, whereby, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences punishable u/s 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).

2. A written complaint was filed by the opposite party No. 2 in the capacity of Labour Superintendent-cum-Inspector, Jamshedpur in which it was stated that M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., Jamshedpur is a factory registered under the Factories Act, 1948. It has further been stated that in terms of Govt. Notification No. 1721 dated 30.1.1977 contract labour was banned in Telco Limited since renamed as M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. An enquiry was conducted on surprise inspection on 18.12.2004 in the premises of Tata Motors Ltd. and as per the enquiry report it was found that inspite of prohibition by the Government contract labour work was going on and it was further found that M/s. Mahadev Enterprises was doing the job of moving materials in foundry store section which was prohibited by the Govt. A show cause notice was asked from the management of M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. by the complainant and on the show cause being found to be unsatisfactory by the complainant, the present complaint case was instituted u/s 10(1) and 23 of the Act.

3. On the complaint being filed, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur vide an order dated 8.6.2005 was pleased to take cognizance for the offences punishable u/s 10(1) of the Act.

4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order taking cognizance by submitting that Section 10(1) is not a penal provision, rather the same deals with prohibition of employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. He submits that taking of cognizance u/s 10(1) of the Act itself shows total non-application of mind on the part of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. He further submits that pursuant to the show cause notice, a reply was given by the management and since the same was found unsatisfactory, as has been indicated in the complaint petition, the said complaint was filed. It has also been submitted that there is no averment in the complaint petition that the petitioners were in charge and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time of commission of offence and in view of the same Section 25 of the Act comes into play and on that basis also the entire criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State on the other hand submits that by Notification dated 16.12.1977, the employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work relating to production and maintenance of machines in M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. was prohibited and in spite of being aware of the said fact contract work was being continuing in the premises of M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. It has further been submitted that in spite of an opportunity to clear its stand with respect to the contract labour being engaged in its premises, no specific reply was given and as such a prosecution was launched against the officers of M/s. Tata Motors Ltd.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that in the complaint petition it has been mentioned that with respect to violation of the prohibition of engaging contract labours, a show cause notice was issued to the management of M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. and having found the show cause to be unsatisfactory, the complaint was made pursuant to which cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for the offence punishable u/s 10(1) of the Act. It further appears that in the complaint case specific averment was made that the offences enumerated in the complaint petition makes out a case u/s 23 of the Act for violation of