The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, particularly regarding the timeliness of complaints and the classification of individuals under the Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records relating to the case in C.C.No.101 of 2020 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet, now Chengalpet District and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed on 09.06.2022

1. Challenging the impugned Judgment dated 09.06.2022 passed in C.C.No.101 of 2020 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet, Chengalpet District, the present criminal revision case has been filed.

2. The fact of the case is that the petitioner/accused No.1 is in Indian Railway Traffic Service (IRTS) and now on deputation, working as Chairman and Managing Director of HLL Lifecare Limited (HLL) a Centre Public Sector Enterprise functioning under Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), Government of India. The case under dispute is related to HLL Biotech Limited (HBL), which was one of the subsidiary companies of HLL and now, a separate Centre Public Sector Enterprise. At the time of filing the case in C.C.No.101 of 2020 by Labour Enforcement Officer before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet, the petitioner/accused No.1 was only the Non-Executive Chairman of the HBL, without any executive power and was not involved in any of the day to day activities/affairs of the HBL.

3. The respondent/complainant filed the complaint against the petitioner for offences under Section 23 r/w Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the complaint was taken on file in C.C.No.101 of 2020 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet. The petitioner/accused pleaded guilty through an advocate and accepting the plea of guilty, the Chief Judicial Magistrate sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of one week. Aggrieved by this, this criminal revision case has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet had apparently failed to notice that the written complaint in C.C.No.101 of 2020 was barred by the period of limitation stipulated in Section 27 of the Act, as he had not filed the said complaint within the period of three months from the date on which the alleged commission of offence (08.11.2019) came to the knowledge of an Inspector (who was the complainant herein) and the same was filed on 18.02.2020 with a delay of 11 days and as such the complaint itself was a time barred one and ought not to have been entertained and registered by the Trial Court at the outset. Further, Section 473 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall not help the respondent/complainant herein to condone the delay in filing the complaint beyond the stipulated period of three months as provided in Section 27 of the Act which is a special Act which prevails over general Acts. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside in its entirety.

5. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 shall not come under definition of the Principal Employer or the Owner or Occupier of the Factory as defined in Section 2 (1) (g) (i) & (ii) of the Act and hence, the petitioner could not be prosecuted under the Act. Further, the respondent/Complainant had wantonly and wilfully arrayed the petitioner as Accused No.1 contrary to the admitted fact (in their own Inspection Report dated 08.11.2019 annexed with the complaint) that the Principal Employer has been named/identified as Dr.V.Vijayan, CEO, M/s. HLL Biotech Ltd, Integrated Vaccine Complex, S.No.192 & 195, Meleripakkam (Village & Post), Chengalpet 603 003. Therefore, adding /arraying the petitioner as an accused is not at all sustainable or tenable under the law and as such the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside.

6. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are several or