Separate prosecutions against landowners and contractors for the same violations are prohibited under the Building and Other Construction Workers Act.

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned complaint filed by the respondent in S.T.C.No.6532 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, against the petitioner for the following offences:

i. Sections 40 (1)(2)(U) of the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”] read with Rule 19 of the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 [hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”] read with Rule

183(q)(m) of the Rules [Penal Section 47(1) of the Act];

ii. Sections 39(1) read with Section 62(1)(2)(zb) of the Act, Rule

210(1)(b) read with Rule 210(7) of the Rules [Penal Section

50(1) of the Act];

iii. Section 40 (1)(2)(o) of the Act read with Rule 178(a)(b) of the Rules [Penal Section 47(1) of the Act]; and iv. (1)(2)(o) of the Act read with Rule 42(7) of the Rules [Penal Section 47(1) of the Act].

2. The allegation in the private complaint is that the petitioner is the landowner, who had constructed a godown in her property; that the construction was not carried out properly and was in violation of the provisions of the aforesaid Act and Rules; that the roof steel trusses collapsed due to rain and caused injuries to one of the workers; and that the petitioner, as the employer, is liable for the aforesaid violations, including failure to send the required forms under the Tamil Nadu Rationalisation of Forms and Reports under Certain Labour Laws, 2020, and for not providing safety lifelines, safety belts, helmets, and safety nets at the construction site.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner cannot be termed as an employer, as admittedly she had engaged one Mr.K.K.Rajkumar, a contractor, for the construction of the godown; that the respondent had prosecuted the said contractor in S.T.C. No.6533 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, for the very same violations, and the said contractor had pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to pay fine; that the impugned complaint seeking to separately prosecute the petitioner without disclosing the earlier complaint filed against the contractor is an abuse of the process of law and is therefore liable to be quashed. He would rely upon the judgment of this Court in Mr.Sain Singh Rawat and others vs. Government of Tamil Nadu , rep. by the Joint Director of Industrial Safety and Health, dated 26.04.2023, rendered in Crl.O.P.No.22336 of

2019, etc. batch.

4. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent, who would confirm the fact that the contractor was prosecuted separately for the very same violations, and that the said contractor, K.K.Rajkumar, as stated above, was convicted and sentenced to pay fine on his admission of guilt.

5. This Court, in several cases, has held that there cannot be two different complaints in respect of the same violation: one against the person for whose benefit the construction is made and the other against the contractor. Section 2 (1)(i) of the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 defines “employer”, which reads as under:

2. Definitions. (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(i) " employer", in relation to an establishment, means the owner thereof, and includes,-

(i) in relation to A building or other construction work carried on by or under the authority of any department of the Government, directly without any contractor, the authority specified in this behalf, or where no authority