The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific averments and roles of individuals in the complaint petition, as mandated by Section 25 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and as emphasized in previous judgments.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C-7 55/97 including the order taking cognizance dated 21.05.1997, whereby, the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance under Sections 23/24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (herein after to be referred to as 'the Act, 1970') pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa.

3. The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that accused persons 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 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 21.12.1996 at 12:20 p.m. when 1748 persons were found working in the establishment and during the course of his inspection he observed the following illegalities:

(i) Commencement of Contract work in respect of Sri N.N. Singh not been submitted to the authority in Form VI B till 25.02.1997, work started in December, 1996 thereby contravening the provision of Rule 81(3).

(ii) In contravention of Rule 81(3), the accused persons completed contract work in respect of S.K. Bose, RBJ Engg. Co. but did not submit, to the authority, work completed on 04.11.1996 and 25.12.1996 respectively in Form VI B.

(iii) In contravention of Rule 18(4), registration certificate was not amended till the date of inspection.

4. The aforesaid contraventions are observed by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Dhanbad during the course of his inspection, and was incorporated in his Inspection report cum show cause dated 20.03.1997 and the same was served to the accused persons by registered post with A/D.

5. 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 day-to-day affairs of the company. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding is bad in law.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that several illegalities were found and that is why the complaint case was rightly filed. He further submits that the petitioner was In-charge of the company at that time. He also submits that there is averment in the complaint petition that the petitioner was looking day-to-day affairs of the company.

7. Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court has taken cognizance looking into the complaint.

8. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the contents of the complaint case and finds that there is no averment that the petitioner was looking to day-to-day affairs of the company, which is one of the requirement to make out the case under the Act, 1970. Section 25 of the Act, 1970 speaks as under:

“25. Offences by companies:

(1) If the person committing an offence under this Act is a company, the company as well as every person in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business at the time of t