The liability of individuals under the Contract Labour Act is contingent on their involvement in the day-to-day affairs of the company and specific averments regarding their roles in the business of the company are required.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. V.K. Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, learned C.G.C. for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 05.04.1997, whereby the learned court has taken the cognizance under Sections 23/24 of the Contract Labour Act against the petitioner, in connection with C-7 45/97, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa.

3. The prosecution story in brief is that by his letter No. 34/28/96- KTG/CHB dated 17.03.1997 the office of the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Chaibasa annexed a complaint petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa against two officers of M/s Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. one being Md. Fassihuddin, General Manager (the present petitioner) and another Mr. J.P. Mishra, Agent and Manager. It was alleged in the aforesaid complaint petition that the aforenamed accused person were executing the work of Iron Mining at Noamundi Iron Mine of M/S TISCO Ltd. and are responsible for the maintenance of registers/records and observance of various other provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition Act, 1970) and rules made thereunder for their establishment. The establishment of the accused persons were inspected by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)/Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Chaibasa/Dhanbad/Koderma on 25.2.1996 at 03:30 P.M. when 48 persons were found working in the establishment and during the course of his inspection he observed the following illegalities :-

(a) In contravention of Rule 18 (4) the accused persons failed to maintain certificates of registration up-to-date in relation to the particulars as specified in the Certificate of Registration.

(b) In contravention of Rule 73 the accused person failed to record a certificate at the end of the entries in the register of wages maintained by the contractors.

(c) In contravention of Rule 74 the accused persons failed to maintain a register of contractors in Form XII.

(d) In contravention of Rule 79 the accused persons failed to display abstract from the Act and Rules under the Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970.

(e) In contravention of Rule 81 (1) (i) the accused persons failed to display the notices showing the rates of wage, hours of work, wage periods date of payment of wages, name and address of the Inspectors having jurisdiction, and the date of payment of unpaid wages in English and Hindi at the Establishment.

(f) In contravention of Rule 81 (3) the accused persons failed to submit a return in Form VI-B to the Inspector appointed under section 28 of the Act.

The aforesaid contraventions as observed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)/Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Chaibasa/Dhanbad/Koderma, during the course of his inspection was incorporated in his Inspection report -cum- show cause notice No. 34 (28)/96- KTG/CHB dated 31.12.1996 and the same was served to the accused persons by registered post with A/D as well as personally.

4. Mr. Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused no.2 in the aforesaid complaint petition namely Mr. Jay Prakash Mishra, the then Senior Divisional Manager (Mines) of Noamundi Iron Ore Mines of TISCO has passed away on 28.01.2006 at Greater Noida. He further submits that the petitioner was General Manager of the said company and the company has not been made accused in the present case. He also submits that in absence of company, liability cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. He refers Section 25 of the Act, 1970 and submits that there is no averment that the petitioner was looking to day-to-day affairs of the company. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding is bad in law.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that several illegalities were found and that is why the complai