Prosecution under the Plantations Labour Act requires proper arraignment of the company and adherence to procedural timelines; failure results in discharge of individual employers.

ORDER :

M. Nirmal Kumar, J.

Crl.R.C.No.1996 of 2023 filed by A2 and A5, Crl.R.C.No.2011 of 2023 filed by A6, Crl.R.C.No.2012 of 2023 filed by A1, Crl.R.C.No.2130 of 2023 filed by A8 and Crl.R.C.No.2238 of 2023 filed by A7 challenging the impugned order dated 24.08.2023 in S.T.C.No.638 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam.

2. The gist of the case is that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Plantations), Udhagamandalam filed a complaint against A1/K.S.Aiyappa, Manager, Dunsandle Tea Estate, The Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Limited, A2/Nusli N.Wadia, Chairman/Employer, A3/Anil Kumar Hirjee, Vice Chairman/Employer, A4/Madhav Laxman Apte, Member/Employer, A5/Danius Erach Udwadia, Member/Employer, A6/Ness N.WAdia, Managing Director/Employer, A7/Jehangir N.Wadia, Member/Employer and A8/Dr.Sheela Bhide, Member/Employer. Dunsandle Tea Estate and the Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Limited, a plantation Company as per Section 2 (f) of Plantations Labour Act, 1951 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] and the above persons are the employers as per Section 2 (e) of the Act. On 22.06.2022 at about 11.00 a.m., inspection was done by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Plantation), at that time, labour quarters inspected. The Inspecting Officer found quarters of Chithraj, Door No.206/9, Jaya, Door No.208/9 and Gayathiri, Door No.90/9 in Somerdale Division found leaking and it was not properly maintained, hence violation of Section 15 of the Act and Rule 48(1)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Plantation Labour Rules, 1955 [hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”]. Further, it was found potable water to the plantation labours supplied without proper hygiene, water tank not properly cleaned and kept in a hygienic condition, thus violation of Section 15 of the Act and Rule 45(1). It was also found that the gutter was not properly cleaned and maintained in a sanitized condition, hence violation of Section 15 of the Act and Rule 45(5). Despite issuance of inspection notice and show cause notice, defects not rectified. Hence, complaint filed.

3. The contention of the learned senior counsels appearing for the petitioners is that inspection order was issued on 05.07.2022 pointing out the defects and the Deputy Manager, Dunsandle Plantation on 19.07.2022 replied, received by the respondent on 21.07.2022. Without considering the reply and without application of mind, again another show cause notice dated 01.08.2022 for same cause of action issued by the respondent and it was also suitably replied on 18.08.2022 by the Manager/A1 informing due compliance of the defects pointed out. The respondent received the reply on 23.08.2022 but suppressing the entire facts, sanction for prosecution obtained on 06.09.2022 and the complaint was filed before the Magistrate on 22.08.2023, the same numbered as S.T.C.No.638 of 2023. In this case, the respondent mechanically filed a complaint without considering the reply sent by the petitioners rectifying the defects. It is submitted that A3 and A4 died on 27.09.2020 and 23.09.2019 respectively. Further, A5, A7 and A8 ceased to be Directors of M/s.Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Limited much prior to the date of occurrence. A5 resigned on 12.08.2019, A7 resigned on 13.09.2021 and A8 resigned on 31.12.2016, their resignation accepted, recorded by Registrar of Companies and proof of the same produced. It is further submitted that by the impugned order dated 24.08.2023, the Magistrate took cognizance, recording satisfaction of prima facie material for the offence under Section 36 of the Act and issued summons including against dead persons and persons who resigned much earlier, nothing to do with the Company and Estate. The learned Magistrate passed cognizance ord