(Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in S.T.C.Nos.1260, 373, 398 & 388 of 2012, C.C.Nos.112, 118, 563, 1261, 564, 330 of 2012 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Goerge Town, Chennai, XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, Judicial Magistrate at Ranipet, IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai respectively and quash the same.)

1. These complaints have been filed under Section 23 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 for the offence punishable under Section 12(1) of the same Act.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner is the contractor as defined under Section 2(i) (c) of the Contract Labourer (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. He has been executing the work of security work at IIT, Chennai by employing 30 contract labourers. While being so, on 10.02.2012, the Labour Enforcement Officer(Central), Chennai inspected the work place and detected the infringement and violation of Section 12 (1) of the Contract Labourer (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and thereby engaged contract labours numbering 30 without obtaining Labour Licence from the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central), Chennai. Hence, the complaint.

2.1. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the respondent is a Labour Enforcement Officer and lodged a complaint without any sanction obtained as contemplated under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and filed the complaint before the Magistrate. The Magistrate without even considering whether the prosecution was initiated after obtaining sanction or not mechanically have taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner. The petitioner is a public servant under the Government of Tamil Nadu and having been deputed as General Manager of TEXCO i.e. Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen Corporation Limited, hereinafter called TEXCO, the undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu. While discharging his official duty, he failed to obtain Labour Licence to engage contract labours and as such while discharging his official duty, the offence was committed. Therefore, necessarily the respondent ought to have obtained sanction as contemplated under Section 197 Cr.P.C. to prosecute the petitioner.

2.2. Further he submitted that the Tamil Nadu Government Undertaking is including the TEXCO and the General Manager of the TEXCO is a public servant coming under the State Government. Therefore Section 197 Cr.P.C. is mandatory and it cannot be dispensed with to prosecute the petitioner. Further he submitted that the petitioner being the State Government undertaking Corporation, the respondent being the Central Government official, he has no power to prosecute the petitioner under the alleged violation as under the Contract Labourer (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. In this regard, he also cited the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.Petition No.851 of 2005 in the case of Sri Victor Joseph and Anr. Vs. the State rep. by the Labour Enforcement Officer dated 21.07.2005 and the judgment of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.7317 of 2017 dated 01.03.2010 in the case of Munianathan Vs. Labour Enforcement Officer(Central).

3. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent filed counter and submitted that the petitioner is a contractor defined under Section 2 (1) (c) of the Contract Labourer (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and he has been awarded contract work from IIT, Chennai for which the Central Government is the appropriate Government to take action as against the petitioner. The respondent is the competent person to lodge a complaint against the petitioner. Further she submitted that the petitioner does not have any immunity under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for the reason that the petitioner is not a public servant. The petitioner is engaged in contractual work with IIT which is a Central Government organi