IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Bijaya Chandra Nayak @ B.C. Nayak, son of Sri Chandra Mani Nayak - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Anr. - Opp. Parties
Cr.M.P. No. 2644 Of 2013
Decided On : 21-03-2023
Contract Labour - Quashing of Criminal Proceeding - Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, Section 23 - The court discussed the definitions of 'establishment' and 'principal employer' under the Act and concluded that the petitioner, as the General Manager, was not the principal employer and therefore the criminal proceeding was quashed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with CLA Case No. 169/2012, including the order dated 21.11.2012, alleging that the O.P. No. 2 had implicated the petitioner as the Principal accused no. 1 based on a complaint of violation of the Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as the General Manager, was not the principal employer as defined under the Act, and therefore quashed the entire criminal proceeding.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, as the General Manager, could be considered the principal employer under the Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definitions of 'establishment' and 'principal employer' under the Act and concluded that the petitioner did not fall within the definition of principal employer, leading to the quashing of the criminal proceeding.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the entire criminal prosecution arising out of CLA Case No. 169/2012, including the order dated 21.11.2012, was quashed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Anup Kr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for the State and Mrs. Bakshi Vibha, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection with CLA Case No. 169/2012 including the order dated 21.11.2012 whereby the learned Magistrate has been pleased to take cognizance of an offence under section 23 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.
3. The prosecution case arises out of a written complaint lodged by the O.P. No.2 alleging interalia that O.P. no.2 inspected the establishment of N.P. Patch of Kuinyan Open Cast Project under bastacolla Area of BCCL on 23.08.2012 and observed that in contravention of Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970 the Principal employer has engaged 50 contract labours through M/s At Libra JV, the contractor for executing the contract work of hiring of HEMM for removal of O.B. extraction and transportation of coal at N.P. Patch of Kuinyan OCP which is prohibited by a notification SO 2063 dated 21.06.1988. A show-cause notice dated 01.10.2012 was served. In paragraph 7 of the complaint it has been stated that the petitner as well as the accused contractor has jointly committed the offence. The said complaint received in the Court of the learned CJM on 21.11.2012 and was registered as CLA Case No. 169 of 2012.
4. Mr. A. K. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the O.P. No. 2 has committed a gross error in implicating the petitioner as the Principal accused no. 1. He further submits that the expression “establishment” has been defined under section 2(e) of the CL (R & A) Act, 1970, to mean-(i) Any office or department of the Government or a local authority or: (ii). Any place where any industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation is carried on. He further submits that the expression “principal employer” has been defined in section 2(g) of the CL (R & A) Act and section 2(g) (iii) provides that the principal employer in relation to a mine would be the owner or agent of the mine and where a person has been named as the manager of the mine, the person so named. He submits that the petitioner is neither the owner of Kuinyan Open Cast Project nor the agent. He is also not the Manager. He is also not the principal employer. He submits that the petitioner at the relevant time was the General Manager, Bastacolla Area of M/s BCCL. He submits that Section 7 of the CL (R & A) Act provides for registration of certain establishment. He submits that the establishment of Kuinyan Open Cast Project of BCCL has been registered as an establishment under sub section 2 of section 7 of the Act by the Registering Officer cum Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Dhanbad-IV. He further submits that the petitioner was General Manager of Bastacolla Area of M/s BCCL and he is neither the owner of Kuinyan Open Cast Project of BCCL nor the agent and in that view of the matter the entire criminal proceeding may be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the complaint filed against the petitioner is just and proper and as per the provision of law for the violation of Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970. She submits that the petitioner is General Manager, representing the Bastacolla Area of M/s BCCL and responsible for all affairs of the company related to work carried out Kuinyan Open Cast Project of BCCL. She submits that the accused is Principal Employer within the meaning of Sub-Section 1(g) of Section 2 of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and carrying out the work of company through contractor M/s Calcutta Industrial Supply Corporation and the contractor executing the contract work of “Earth cutting and removal of overburden, raising of coal, loading & transportation of coal at XIV, XII, XII, XII and IX/X seams of Kuinyan Open
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the definition of 'principal employer' under the Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970, is crucial in determining liability under the Act.
The requirement for the company to be made an accused and the accused to be responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company under Section 25 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Ac....
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 alle....
The judgment established the requirement for specific allegations and evidence of vicarious liability for individuals under the Contract Labour Act, emphasizing the need for a role in the incriminati....
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 ....
Absorption of contract labour – There is no provision under Section 10 of CLRA Act that workers/employees employed by contractor automatically become employees of appellant and/or employees of contra....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.