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) Act, 1970.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha along with Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Laxman Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.L. (R&A) Act Prosecution Case No.170 of 2012 including the order taking cognizance dated 21.11.2012, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

3. The complaint was filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), who has been appointed as an Inspector under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, wherein, it has been alleged that the accused person are responsible for the affairs of the company and is the principal employer and carrying out the contract work of removal of overburden, extraction and transportation of coal from XV seam hired HEMM patch of Bhowra (South) Colliery, Eastern Jharia Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited by employing contract labour. The complainant being an Inspector had inspected the establishment of the accused person on 22.08.2012 and observed the offence that any contravention of Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the employer have engaged 15 contract labours through M/s SAR Parivahan Pvt. Ltd., contractor for executing the contract work of earth cutting, removal of overburden and extraction of coal at Bhowra (South) Colliery, Eastern Jharia, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, which is prohibited by Government vide notification dated 21.06.1988. The petitioner was arrayed as accused at Serial No.1 to the complaint petition and he had submitted his show-cause, which was found unsatisfactory and accordingly the present case was registered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court has taken cognizance vide order dated 21.11.2012 under Sections 23 and 24 of the said Act. He further submits that the work of hiring of HEMM for removal of OB extraction and transportation of coal with fire fighting from XV seam hired HEMM patch of Bhowra (S) Colliery of EJ Area. He also submits that the work of hiring of above mentioned was awarded in favour of M/s SAR Parivahan Pvt. Ltd. with certain terms and conditions. He submits that there is allegation that there was contravention of Section 10(1) of the said Act. He further submits that on the date of inspection no contract labour was appointed by the authorities of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. for execution of any operation/work in any establishment and there is no violation of Section 10(1) of the said Act. He also submits that the cognizance has been taken under the said Act and the Company is not made party. He draws attention of the Court to Section 25 of the said Act and submits that there is no averment in the complaint petition that the petitioners were looking for day-to-day affairs of the company. He submits that identical was the situation in Cr.M.P. No.326 of 2015 and batch cases, which was decided vide order dated 07.03.2022 in which the entire criminal proceeding was quashed by this Court.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Laxman Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that there is violation of the said Act and that is why the case has been filed. Not making M/s BCCL as one of the accused, is not fatal for the prosecution and at this stage, the entire criminal proceeding may not be quashed.

6. Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court has rightly taken cognizance on the complaint petition.

7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is General Manager of Eastern Jharia Area of M/s BCCL and M/s BCCL is not made accused and in absence of the company, this petitioner has been made accused. Section 25 of the Act stipulates that the persons who are responsible for day to day affairs of t