ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER (described as 'accused' also) calls in question legality and validity of the proceeding initiated against him for alleged viola tion of certain provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short, the 'act' ). ( 2 ) A complaint was filed by the Laboar Enforce ment Officer (Central Paradeep) (hereinafter re ferred to as 'complainant') before the Sub-divi sional Judicial Magistrate, Balasore (in short, 'sdjm') alleging that since there was violation of provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act, action was to be taken against the petitioner. It was alleged that the establishment of the accused-petitioner was inspected on 21-9-1991, when it was noticed that 36 contract labours in addition to truck drivers and helpers were employed, besides 70 direct employ ees/persons and during the course of inspection certain irregularities were noticed. Acting on the complaint cognizance was taken by the learned SDJM and summons was issued to the petitioner to answer to the charge of offence under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the proceeding was misconceived and the issue of summons as done is misconceived. The establishment if any with regard to which the inspection was claimed to have been made is Indian Oi1 Corporation Limited (here inafter referred to as 'company'), a corporate body. In respect of an inspection allegedly made on 20-9 -1991 a proceeding has been initiated against Shri D. Bhattacharyya, Plant Manager, ISP describing him as the principal employer. Interestingly, similar com plaint was made against petitioner, who is Deputy General Manager (LPG) describing him as the Prin cipal employer within the meaning of Section 2 (g) of the Act, in respect of the alleged violation during inspection on 21-9-1991. ( 4 ) IN support of the application it is urged that the establishment is corporate body, a company, and without any material the petitioner has been de scribed as the Principal employer. Offences by cor porate bodies are set out in Section 25. ( 4 ) IN support of the application it is urged that the establishment is corporate body, a company, and without any material the petitioner has been de scribed as the Principal employer. Offences by cor porate bodies are set out in Section 25. It provides in Sub-Section (1) thereof that if a person committing an offence under the Act is a company, the company as well as every persons in charge of, and respon sible to, the company for the conduct of its business at the time of the commission of the offence shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. The proviso makes its clear that nothing contained in Section (1) indicated above, shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowl edge or that he exercised all are diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. Sub-Section (2) of the said Section is in the nature of an explanation and provides that in Sub-Section (1) where an offence under the Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offences has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or that the commission of the offence is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, managing agent or any other officer of the company, such director, manager, managing agent or such other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. 'company', as indicated in the Expla nation appended to Section 25, means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals. ( 5 ) UNDISPUTEDLY the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the company is a body corporate. 'princi pal employer' as defined in Section 2 (g) reads as follows : "2. 'company', as indicated in the Expla nation appended to Section 25, means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals. ( 5 ) UNDISPUTEDLY the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the company is a body corporate. 'princi pal employer' as defined in Section 2 (g) reads as follows : "2. Definitions - (H) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- xxx xxx xxx (g) 'principal employer' means - (i) in relation to any office or department of the Government or a local authority, the head of that office or department or such other office as the Government or the local authority, as the case may be may specify in this behalf, (II) in a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory 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, (III) in a mine, the owner or agent of the mine and where a person has been named as the manager of the mine, the person so named, (IV) in any other establishment any person re sponsible for the supervision and control of the establishment. Explanation - For the purpose of sub-clause (iii) of this clause, the expression 'mine', 'owner' and 'agent' shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clause (j), clause (l) and clause (c) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952 ). " ( 6 ) IT is accepted that the case at hand is to be covered by Section 2 (g) (ii ). The ambit of Section 25 does not appear to have been kept in view by the complainant, and it is undisputedly shown that the present petitioner and one D. Bhattacharyya, both have been described as "principal employer". In the complaint petition also no material has been indi cated as to under what circumstances the complain ant came to hold that the petitioner is responsible for the day to day affairs of the establishment in relation to appointment of contract labours. Address given in the complaint petition itself shows that the present petitioner is stationed at Calcutta. From the other complaint it is seen that Shri D. Bhattacharyya has been described as Plant Manager, stationed at Balasore. Address given in the complaint petition itself shows that the present petitioner is stationed at Calcutta. From the other complaint it is seen that Shri D. Bhattacharyya has been described as Plant Manager, stationed at Balasore. Reliance is placed on a letter of the Gov ernment of India dated 24-10-1989 addressed to the Company clarifying that the crew working on tank ers and labour engaged by them for carrying the petroleum products to the customers from terminal to the dealers/distributors placed are not covered by the Act. It is pleaded that effect of the letter has also not been considered, and cognizance has been taken in routine and casual manner. ( 7 ) AS indicated above, in respect of inspection made on previous day, i. e. , 23-9-1991, one Shri D. Bhattacharyya was held to be the principal em ployer. In the proceeding under consideration Shri S. Ram Mohan, the present petitioner has been indicated to be the principal employer. It is accepted that the company is covered by second category of Section 2 (g) relating to a factory. The owner or occupier of the factory and a person named as manager of the factory under the Factories Act, 1948 (in short, the 'factories Act') is to be treated as principal employer. Additionally Section 25 which relates to offences by companies provides that in addition to the company, every person in charge of, and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time of commission of offence shall he deemed to be guilty of the offence, and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accord ingly. While taking cognizance the learned SDJM ap parently has not considered those aspects. In the complaint petition filed except stating that the peti tioner was the principal employer, nothing else-has been stated. Petitioner's specific statement is that he is stationed at Calcutta, and is not responsible for the day to day affairs of the establishment in question situate at Balasore. The very same complainant in respect of the inspection made on the previous day has treated another person to be in charge of day to day affairs of the establishment in question. Petitioner's specific statement is that he is stationed at Calcutta, and is not responsible for the day to day affairs of the establishment in question situate at Balasore. The very same complainant in respect of the inspection made on the previous day has treated another person to be in charge of day to day affairs of the establishment in question. Since the establishment is a factory it has to be shown that the person against whom action is intended was either owner or occupier of the factory or person who is named as manager under the Factories Act. The complaint does not disclose this aspect. In the aforesaid circumstances, order of cognizance passed by the learned SDJM and consequential acts are indefensible, and the matter needs re-consideration. The learned SDJM shall decide whether any mate rial exists to proceed against the petitioner. The application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Order accordingly.