Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3061
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
M/s. Greenways Shipping Agencies Pvt Ltd., Represent By Its Director Lalit Beriwala and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India, Represented By Shri. Jarpula Mahesh, The Assistant Director (Safety), Inspectorate Dock Safety, Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment - Respondent
Crl. O.P.No. 19846 of 2023 and Crl. M.P. Nos.13424 & 13425 of 2023
Decided On : 28-03-2025
For the Petitioners: Mr. S. Ramachandran.
For the Respondent: Mr. D. Simon.
The court held that the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. as it was filed more than one year after the incident, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for legal proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986 - Section 14(2)(a) - Regulations 107(1) and 111(1) of the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations, 1990 - Petition to quash proceedings for alleged safety violations - It was found that the complaint was barred by limitation, having not been filed within one year of the incident as required. (Paras 1-12)
(B) Limitation - The court ruled that the complaint was not filed within the period prescribed in Section 468 of Cr.P.C, confirming that such complaints should be lodged within one year from the date of the offence. Exemptions due to COVID-19 pandemic did not apply here. (Paras 7-12)
Facts of the case:
A trailer operated by the petitioner was involved in an accident causing the death of a dock worker while transporting cargo. The petitioners, as principal employers, faced charges under safety regulations but contended that the complaint was filed late. (Paras 2-6)
Findings of Court:
The court found the proceedings against the petitioners unsustainable due to the tardiness of filing the complaint, which was lodged beyond the statutory limit imposed by law. (Paras 9-10)
Issues: The primary issue was whether the complaint was time-barred under the relevant provisions of the law. (Para 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that timely filing of complaints is crucial and clarified that limitations could not be extended unless specifically provided for by statute, reaffirming the principle of statutory compliance regarding limitation periods. (Paras 8-12)
Result: The criminal proceedings were quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. incident and complaint details (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. argument on limitation of complaint (Para 7) |
| 3. impact of covid-19 on limitation periods (Para 8) |
| 4. supreme court's clarification on bail and limitation (Para 9) |
| 5. court's decision to quash the proceedings (Para 10) |
ORDER :
(G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.)
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.534 of 2023 on the file of the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, thereby taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 14 (2)(a) of the Dock Workers (Safety, Health & Welfare) Act, 1986 as against the petitioners.
2. The respondent has filed a complaint as against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 14 (2)(a) of the Dock Workers (Safety, Health & Welfare) Act, 1986 for the breach of Regulations 107(1) and 111(1) of the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations, 1990. It is alleged that on 28.02.2021, the second petitioner, representing the first petitioner, was engaged in the transportation of steel coils within the premises of Port. For the said purpose, A3 and A4, operating under the name M/s.Sri Chellammal Transport, Chennai and being the registered owners of the trailer bearing Registration No.TN/18/AB/5126, were engaged by the petitioners to carry out the said transportation. On the same day, one M.Tamil Mani, an employee of the port, was engaged in berthing and mooring operations at Jawahar Docks-4. On completion of his duty, while proceeding to his residence on a motorcycle and approaching Gate No.7 of the Port premises, he was struck and run over by the aforementioned trailer bearing No.TN/18/AB/5126. As a result, he sustained grievous chest injuries and was immediately admitted to Chennai Port Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries.
3. At the time of the incident, the said trailer was engaged in the process of collecting steel coils stored by the petitioners. The vehicle was operated by A5, who was responsible for driving the trailer and conducting the said operation. The nature of the work being carried out falls within the ambit of “Dock Work” as defined under Section 2 (e) of the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986.
4. Pursuant to the said incident, an FIR was registered in Crime No.4 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC as against the driver of the trailer bearing registration No..TN/18/AB/5126, who has been arrayed as A5 in the present complaint. The allegations as against the petitioners are follows:
(i) The Petitioner No.1 was engaged in handling, storing and transporting cargo at Chennai Port, while Petitioner No.2 was responsible for day-to-day business related to dock work carried out by 1st petitioner.
(ii) The petitioners were the principal employer of Accused No.5 and had failed to ensure that dock workers including Accused No.5 had undergone medical examination prior to the employment on dock work.
(iii) The petitioners failed to impart initial and periodic training in the field of occupational safety and health to dock workers.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. The petitioners are arrayed as A1 & A2. The first petitioner was engaged in handling, storing and transporting cargo at the Chennai Port, while the second petitioner was in charge of the day-to- day affairs to dock work undertaken by the first petitioner. The petitioners were principal employers of the 5th accused. It is alleged that the petitioners failed to ensure that the dock workers underwent the requisite medical examination prior to their engagement of dock work. The petitioners failed to provide the mandatory initial and periodic training in the field of occupational safety and health to dock workers, as required under the relevant statutory provisions.
7. Therefore, the petitioners have committed the offence under Section 14 (2)(a) of the Dock Workers (Safety
