SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 96977

MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.BALAJI – Appellant
Versus
STATE REPRESENTED BY – Respondent
CRL OP 5330/2019



Advocates:
['M/S K S KUMAR', '', 'P SATHISH', 'K SARAVANAN', 'K M VALSALA', 'M/S L INFANT DINESH', '', 'REPORT RECEIVED', 'D NO', 'DT', 'ADDL CGSC']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.06.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

CRL.O.P.NO.5330 OF 2019

AND

CRL.M.P.NO.3063 OF 2019

K.Balaji

... Petitioner

/versus/

The State Rep. by

The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central),

Government of India,

Ministry of Labour and Employment,

"Shastri Bhavan",

No.26, Haddows Road,

Chennai - 600 006.

... Respondent

PRAYER:-

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C, to call for the records in C.C.No.8153 of 2018 on the

file of the Metropolitan Magistrate No.II, Egmore at Allikulam,

Chennai, quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Kumar

For Respondent : Mr.L.Infant Dinesh

Additional Central Government

Standing Counsel

O R D E R

The petitioner herein is the accused in the complaint filed

by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Chennai, under

Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act

1970 and Contract Labour Regulation Central Rules, 1971.

2. The sum and substance of the complaint is that the

petitioner herein is the Additional General Manager, in charge

of M/s.RITES Limited, which is the license holder under Section

12(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,

1970. The license is given for the work of inspection, testing

and commissioning of Electrical multiple units & Air conditioned

Coaches in the Establishment of Furnishing Division,

M/s.Integral Coach Factory, at Chennai. The Inspector of Labour

Department inspected the establishment of M/s.RITES Limited,

Chennai on 13.08.2018, while executing the Contract work of

inspection, testing and commissioning of Electrical multiple

units & Air conditioned Coaches at the Establishment of

Furnishing Division, M/s.Integral Coach Factory, at Chennai.

During the inspection, certain irregularities were noted and

therefore show cause notice was issued to the petitioner herein

being the Additional General Manager of the said licensee

M/s.RITES limited, requesting him to rectify the irregularities

immediately and report compliance within a fortnight to the

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), 5th floor, Shastri

Bhawan, Chennai.

3. The irregularities noticed in the inspection report dated

13/08/2018 are as under:

"Pertaining To Returns:

1. The employer failed to upload unified annual

returns in web portal before 01st February for the

year of 2017 in form XIV. [Breach of Rule 82(1)]

Pertaining to wages:

1. Contractor has not ensured the presence of

the representative authorized by the Principal

Employer at the time of the disbursement of wages.

[Breach of Rule 72]"

4. The private complaint was filed on 12.11.2018 and taken

on file in C.C.No.8153 of 2018 for prosecution under Penal

Sections 24 read with Rule 25(2)(viii), Section 24 read with

Rule 76(i) and Section 24 read with Rule 72 of the Contract

Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970. In the complaint, it

is specifically stated that the above violations were noted

during the inspection and therefore show cause notice dated

13.08.2018 was issued to the accused and accused was requested

to rectify the irregularities. However, the contractor/ accused

has not submitted the compliance report, hence they are liable

to be prosecuted under Section 24 of IPC. Penal Sections under

which prosecution initiated are as follows:

"01.Penal Section 24 read with Rule 25(2)(Vii)

Non-submission of Notice of Commencement of

contract work in Form-Vii

02.Penal Section 24 read with Rule 76(i)

Non-submission of Annual Returns through

online before statutory time limit.

03.Penal Section 24 read with Rule 72

The Contractor has not ensured the presence of

the representative authorized by the Principle

Employer at the time of the disbursement of wages."

5. On receipt of the summons from the II Metropolitan

Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, the accused h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top