THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINTS DATED 28.02.2018 AND DATED 08.03.2018 IN C.C.NO.11871/2018 ON THE FILE OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 1ST TRAFFIC COURT, BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

Petitioners have challenged the prosecution launched against them in C.C No.11871/2018 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court - I, Mayohall, Bengaluru, and to quash the complaint in C.C. No.11871/2018 and to quash the order dated 23.03.2018 passed by the Trial Court taking cognizance upon the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 28 of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 (for short, 'the Act, 1979').

The respondent initiated proceedings inter alia to prosecute the petitioners for an offence under Section 6 of the Act, 1979, in C.C No.11871/2018. The Trial Court, after perusing the contents of the complaint submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (stated as Labour Commissioner in the impugned order), Division-3, Bengaluru, under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 28 of the Act, 1979, took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused.

The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order as well as the registration of C.C No.11871/2018, have filed this petition.

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the proceedings before the Trial Court are vitiated as the Company which is the principal employer is not arraigned as an accused in the complaint and it is only the petitioners, who are private persons, are arraigned as the accused. He also submits that to a notice issued by the Authority under the Act, 1979, it was informed that the Company does not mobilize construction workers from other States and most of the workforce are from Karnataka. It was also claimed that there might be workers from Orissa or other States and the Company does not have any relationship with any contractor in any other State other than Karnataka for sourcing the workforce. He contends that the Company does not source any employees from outside the State for the provisions of Act, 1979 to be applicable and it is only those employees who come to the worksite, who are engaged by the Company and therefore, an offence under Section 6 of the Act, 1979 is not attracted. In support of his contentions, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners relied upon the orders passed by two different coordinate Benches of this Court in Crl. P. No.3064/2018 (decided on 18.07.2018) and Crl.P. No.2872/2018 (decided on 28.06.2018).

The learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that the question whether the workers employed by the Company are sourced from outside the State of Karnataka or are employed at the site is a question of trial and therefore, this Court may not exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the proceedings. He, however, did not dispute the position of law that the petitioners cannot be prosecuted unless their Principal, namely the Company is arraigned as an accused.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

Under Section 6 of the Act, 1979, an offence is committed when a principal employer of an establishment to which the Act, 1979 applies, employs inter-State migrant workmen in the establishment without obtaining a certificate of registration issued under the provisions of the Act, 1979. Except the statement that at the time of inspection, there were workmen from various States, there is no assertion in the complaint that