The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Central Government as the appropriate authority for establishments related to railway projects under the BOCW Act, 1996, and the limitations on who can file a complaint under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

This order shall dispose of four petitions referred above, as similar facts and questions of law are involved therein.

2. Petitioners have sought to quash the criminal complaints filed by the respondents against them in the Court of ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, seeking their prosecution under Sections 47, 48 and 50 of the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 [for short ‘the BOCW Act, 1996’], for violation of the various provisions of the aforesaid 1996 Act and Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2005 [for short ‘the 2005 Rules’].

3. Inspections were conducted by the respondents at the site of the petitioners on different dates, alleging various violations of the BOCW Act, 1996, in respect of which different complaints have been filed, all of which are subject matter of challenge in these petitions. Following table provides necessary details:-

4. For ready reference, facts are being noted from CRM-M-24054-2014.

5. As per the complaint (Annexure P8) filed before ld. CJM, Gurugram, inspection was carried out by a team of Director Industrial Safety and Health, Gurugram-I on 13.12.2013 at the establishment of petitioner No.1, which found non-registration of petitioner No.1 under the BOCW Act, 1996. Various other violations of the Act were also noticed, which were not rectified and therefore, prosecution of the petitioners-accused was sought under Sections 47, 48 and 50 of the BOCW Act, 1996. Ld. CJM, Gurugram, without taking any preliminary evidence, issued notice to the accused-petitioners to face prosecution, vide order dated 31.03.2014 (Annexure P-9).

6. It is contended by learned counsel that petitioners are companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, which are promoted by Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Limited [IL & FS Ltd.]. The Rapid Metro Rail, Gurugram Ltd. is a Special Purpose Vehicle [SPV], being the concessionaire for the project, created to provide speedy transport from National Highway-8 to Sikanderpur Delhi Metro Phase-I. Petitioner No.1 is also the special purpose vehicle for Phase-II of the project connecting Sikanderpur Delhi Metro to Sector 56 Gurugram and so, in order to execute the work of the Metro Rail Project, petitioner No.2 being the contractor for the project was incorporated with sole object of focusing on the Urban Rail Transit Projects.

7. It is contended further that for execution of the Rapid Metro Rail Project at Gurugram, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed on 15.12.2011 amongst Government of India, Government of Haryana and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited, which clarifies that project is to be governed by the provisions of Metro Railway (Construction of Workers) Act, 1978 and Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002 and/or such other legislation made from time to time by the Government of India. It is submitted that construction activity is going on in full swing and that the certificate of registration dated 26.09.2013 to carry out Phase II of the project was duly issued by the Registering Officer, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central to Petitioner No.3, being the contractor in compliance with BOCW Act, 1996 and Rules made thereunder.

8. It is contended that respondent No.1 vide a letter dated 04.03.2014 (Annexure P6) in a mala fide manner alleged that petitioner was not registered with the appropriate Government i.e. State Government under the BOCW Act, 1996. Petitioner responded to the letter by categorically informing that establishment was duly regis