JUDGMENT 1. THIS revisional application is for quashing the proceeding in Case No. C/1587 of 1978 under Sec. 85 (a) and (g) read with Section 85 (A) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and the order dated 10.9.79 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta reflecting, the petitioner's prayer for dropping the proceeding against him. 2. UPON hearing the learned advocate for the parties and considering averments made in the complaint so far as the petitioner is concerned, I find that he cannot be called principal employer of M/s Nabasakti Newspaper Co. Pvt. Ltd. within the meaning of clause (17) of Section 2 of the said Act, the relevant portion of which 'runs as follows :- "principal employer means - (i) in a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory and includes the managing agent of such owner or occupier, the legal representatives of a deceased owner or occupier and where a person has been named as the Manager of the factory under the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948)the person so named;" In the present case the relevant averment in the petition of complaint filed by the E. S. Insurance Inspector is as follows : "the accused persons are the Managing Director and Manager respectively of M/s Nabasakti Newspaper Co. Pvt. Ltd. having its factory at 123, Acharya Jagadish Bose road, Calcutta-14 and Code 41-2408 was allotted to it. As such the accused persons are the principal employers of the said M/s. Nabasakti newspaper Co. Pvt. Ltd. as denned in clause 17 of section 2 of the said act;" 3. IN my view, the petitioner who was at the relevant time described as Managing Director of the company, owning the factory was neither the owner nor the occupier of the factory and so he does not come within the ambit of the definition of principal employer in clause 17 of section 2 of the Act. Moreover it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the notice in respect of the alleged default in payment of contribution for the period ending 25th March 1978 and 27th May 1978 was issued by the E. S. I. Corporation to Dilip Kr. Dutta as manager of the factory and not to the petitioner (The original notice has been produced before this Court for inspection). This fact is also not challenged on behalf of the State. Dutta as manager of the factory and not to the petitioner (The original notice has been produced before this Court for inspection). This fact is also not challenged on behalf of the State. It also indicates that the petitioner was not regarded as principal employer by the E. S. I. Corporation in sending the aforesaid notice. In the circumstances, I find that the impugned proceeding against the petitioner cannot continue and the impugned order should be set aside. 4. IN the result, the Rule is made absolute. The impugned proceeding against the petitioner and the learned Magistrate's order dated 10.9.79 are quashed. Let the records be sent down to the court below as early as possible so that the proceeding may continue against the other accused person. Rule made absolute