C O M M O N O R D E R

Complaints in C.C.Nos.2609 and 2604 of 2021 have been filed under Section 23 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 for the breach of Section 24 of the Contract Labour Act, 1970.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the contractor, as defined under Section 2(i) (c ) of the Contract Labourer (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. She has been executing the work of Watch & Ward Services, at Indian Oil LNG Pvt Limited, at Indian Oil Bhavan, No.139 Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 34, by employing 20 or more contract labourers. While being so, on 13/11/2019, at 11.15 and 11.00 hours respectively, the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Chennai, inspected the work place under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)

Act, 1970 and Central Rules, 1971, and observed the following offences:-

(i). failed to intimate about the commencement/completion of contract work to the Inspector to Form VII.

(ii). Failed to display an Abstract of the Act and Rules made thereunder in the Form approved by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi in English, Hindi and Tamil at the workspot.

(iii). Failed to issue employment cards to the workers and (iv). Executing the contract without obtaining license.

3. The respondent had observed the aforesaid offences and incorporating the same in the inspection report-cum-Show Cause Notice Nos.34/41/2019-II/E2 and 34 (54)-2019-II/E2, dated 18/10/2019 and 13/11/2019 respectively and the inspection reports were duly sent to the petitioner. It was submitted by the respondent that since the petitioner has not submitted any reply, the petitioner is liable for prosecution under Sections 24 and 23 of the said Act.

4. In the above said backdrop, the respondent had filed C.C.Nos.2609 and

2604 of 2021, on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, to prosecute the petitioner herein, under Sections 24 and 23 of the Act, respectively, punishable with the imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months or with fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or with both.

5. Assailing C.C.Nos.2609 and 2604 of 2021, the petitioner had filed these Criminal Original Petitions praying for the relief as stated supra.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent is a Labour Enforcement Officer and lodged a complaint without obtained any sanction, as contemplated under Section 197 Cr.P.C., and filed the complaint before the Magistrate. The Magistrate without even considering whether the prosecution was initiated after obtaining sanction or not mechanically have taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner. The petitioner is a public servant under the Government of Tamil Nadu and having been deputed as Managing Director of TEXCO i.e. Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen Corporation Limited, hereinafter called TEXCO, the undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu. While discharging his official duty, he failed to obtain Labour Licence to engage contract labours and as such while discharging his official duty, the offence was committed. Therefore, necessarily the respondent ought to have obtained sanction, as contemplated under Section

197 Cr.P.C., to prosecute the petitioner.

7.Further he submitted that the Tamil Nadu Government Undertaking is including the TEXCO and the Managing Director of the TEXCO is a public servant coming under the State Government. Therefore Section 197 Cr.P.C. is mandatory and it cannot be dispensed with to prosecute the petitioner. Further he submitted that the petitioner being the State Government undertaking Corporation, the respondent being the Central Government official, he has no power to prosecute the petitioner under the alleged violation as under the Contract Labourer (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. In this regard, she also cited the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.Petition No.851 of 2005 in the case of Sri Victor Joseph and A