IMPORTANT POINT
The court quashed criminal proceedings due to improper cognizance and clarified limitation interpretation under the Contract Labour Act, emphasizing judicial scrutiny.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2/ Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) seeks time to file counter affidavit.

2. By order dated 10.11.2017, the O.P.No.2 was called upon to file counter affidavit, but till date, the counter affidavit has not been filed and the matter is of the year 2017 which suggest that O.P.No.2 has got no interest in the matter and that is why he has not instructed his earlier counsel as well as the present counsel Mr. Ravi Prakash, and further the matter is an old one and stay was earlier granted and further in a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C, the only requirement is to look into the averments as well as the order taking cognizance and to consider the law points and no additional documents are required to be considered. As such, the prayer made by Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2/ Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) is rejected.

3. Heard Mr. Vikas Pandey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the respondent State and Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2/ Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), HarinDanga Bazar, Pakur.

4. The prayer in this petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 12.08.2013 arising out of OCR Case No.90 of 2013, corresponding to T.R. No.1101 of 2013, for non-compliance of sections 23 and 24 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur.

5. The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that the petitioners carried the contract work of maintenance work FMC work of equipments/ Kamatsu Dump Truck for Panem Coal Mines, Pakur, through employee numbering of 68 on 08.05.2013 and thus, he is a contractor defined under section 2(c) of the said Act which is applicable on their establishment under section 211(4)(b). The accused is responsible for the execution of the above work. When the above said establishment was in progress Sri Sushil Kumar, Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Patna visited the establishment on 08.05.2013 at Panem Coal Mines Amrapara, Pakur, and inspected the establishment under the provisions of the said Act and Central Rules and has observed such irregularities allegedly found therein.

6. Mr. Vikas Pandey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 is a company and the petitioner no.2 was an officer of the company and he has already retired from the said company on 07.04.2013 and thereafter the present case has been lodged. He submits that in the complaint case, the petitioner no.2 is shown in representative capacity of the company and as such, a separate person is not made an accused in the complaint case. He draws the attention of the Court to the letter dated 06.05.2013 which is brought on record and submits that knowledge of not having license was there to the Inspector on that day itself, however, complaint case has been lodged on 07.08.2013, i.e., after one day of the limitation prescribed under section 27 of the said Act. He submits that in the said Act, three months limitation is there and he further submits that even if the case is lodged after one day, the entire criminal proceeding is bad in law as again no prayer was made before the learned court to condone the delay and in absence of any condonation, the learned court has taken cognizance, and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Another v. Himachal Techno Engineers and Another reported in (2010) 2 SCC 210 and relied on the paragraph nos.6, 14, 15 and 18 of the said judgment, which are quoted hereunder :

“6. This leads us to the question whether the petition was filed beyond three months plus thirty days. There is no dispute that if the petition had bee