JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Vijoy Kr. Sinha and Mrs. Ruby Pandey, appearing for the State.

2. In both the 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 both the petitions, the prayer is made for quashing the entire criminal prosecution arising out of G.O. 18 of 2013 including the order dated 18.01.2013, whereby, cognizance of an offence under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (herein after to be referred to as the Act) against the petitioners, pending in the Court of learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella-Kharsawan.

4. The opposite party no.2 lodged complaint dated 16.01.2013 alleging therein the complainant under the capacity of Inspector under the Contract Labour (regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 along with Shri Arun Kumar Mishra, Factory Inspector, Circle-2, District Seraikella-Kharsawan and Shri Satyendra Kumar Singh, Labour Enforcement Officer, Gamharia, District Seraikella Kharsawan conducted an inspection with regard to contractor M/s Bharat Heavy Engineering Ltd. working under M/s Adhunik Power & Natural Resources Ltd. at Padampur, Behind P.G.C.I., Adityapur-Kandra Road, Distric, District Seraikella –Kharsawan. At the time of inspecton, it is alleged that Shri D. Shah, General Manger was present and in course of the inspection the following violations have been stated to have been found:-

(i).Prior Contract Licence in terms of Section 12 of the Act has not been obtained.

(ii). Facilities in terms of Rule 51, Rule 57 and Rule 58 required to be provided to the labourers were not provided.

(iii). Register of the engaged labourers in terms of Rule 75 was not kept.

(iv) Engagement Memo in Form XIV within 30 days from the date of commencement of the work in terms of Rule 76 was not given.

(v). Service Certificate to the labourers/staff upon completion of work in Form xv in terms of Rule 77 has not been given.

(vi). Muster Role in Form XVI, Wages Register in Form XVII, overtime Register in Form XXIII as required in terms of Rule 78 were not found at the workplace. Wage slip to the labourers in Form XIX was not given.

It was alleged that regarding the aforesaid violations, a show cause notice vide letter no. 445 dated 05.12.2012 was issued requiring the contractor to submit his reply on 18.12.2012 at 11.00 A.M. and it has been alleged that the reply given by the contractor on the requisite date was not satisfactory.

Thus, it was prayed that by taking cognizance of the offence in terms of Section 26 the accused persons named in Column 2 in respect of the violations mentioned in Column 5, appropriate punishment be awarded to the accused persons in terms of section 24(A) of the Act.

Subsequently, the opposite Party no. 2 moved a petition, praying therein that due to typographical mistake section 24(A) has been typed in Column 5 of the prosecution report instead of Section 24 and, therefore, it was prayed that Section 24(A) in the prosecution report be read as Section 24. The aforesaid prosecution report was numbered as G.O. 18 of 2013 in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella-Kharsawan.

5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned court has taken cognizance under sections 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. He submits that the petitioner- Nirmal Kumar Agrawal has been implicated in this case in the capacity of being occupier of M/s Adhunik Power & Natural Resources Ltd. He further submits that M/s Bharat Heavy Engineering Ltd. had replied to the show cause notice dated 05.12.2012 by a reply dated 18.12.2012 wherein it has been categorically stated that BHEL is a Government of India undertaking and has not employed any contract labour for carrying out any activities. He further submits that so far as