Judgment : The accused in S.T.R.No. 295 of 1991 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Coimbatore, have filed this petition under Sec. 482, Crl.P.C. praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same. 2. Short facts are: The respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner under Sec. 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (which I shall hereinafter refer to as the Act). The allegations in it are briefly as follows: The complainant is the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Coimbatore, who has been appointed as an “Inspector” under Sub-sec(1) of Sec. 28 of the Act. The accused No. 1 is the Principal employer as defined under Sec. 2(g) of the Act and accused No. 2 is the Manager and the person responsible for supervision and control of the establishment M/s. Associated Cement Companies Limited, Madukkarai. The said establishment is a registered establishment as defined under the Act, having several contractors working with them employing more than 20 contract labour in their establishment. Both the accused are responsible for the compliance of the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Madras inspected the establishment of the principal employer viz. M/ s. Associated Cement Companies Limited along with Inspectors and detected the following infringements and violations of the provisions of the Act and Rules: 1. The Register of Contractors is not maintained up-to-date, as required under Rule 74 inasmuch as the name and address of “M/s. Badiga Brothers & Co. Contractors” for transportation of limestone from Walayar Limestone Mine of Associated Cement Company to the Associated Cement Company Cement Factory at Madukkarai were not entered in the Register of Contractors and hence there is breach of Rule 74 read with Rule 80(1). 2. The changes occurred in the Certificate of Registration consequent of engagement of M/s. Badiga Brothers & Co, as Contractors for transportation of limestone from Walayar limestone mine of Associated Cement Company to the Associated Cement Company Cement Factory at Madukkarai was not intimated to the Registering Officer within the prescribed time limit and hence there is breach of Rule 18(4). 3. Notice showing commencement of contract work by M/s. Badiga Brothers & Co., Contractors in Form VI-B not sent to the Inspector and thus there is breach of Rule 81 (3). 3. 3. Notice showing commencement of contract work by M/s. Badiga Brothers & Co., Contractors in Form VI-B not sent to the Inspector and thus there is breach of Rule 81 (3). 3. The above violations are noted in the inspection report dated 21. 1991. It was sent to the accused and duly received by them. The reply sent by them was found not satisfactory. Hence the accused are liable to be punished under Sec. 24 of the Act. 4. Mr.T.S. Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that originally Badiga Brothers & Co., were doing loading as well as transporting of the limestone from the Mine to the factory and at that time, the registration as required under Sec.7 of the said Act was made for loading and subsequently, the loading was done by mechanised process and so there was no loading operation by manual labour and the loading contract was terminated and thereafter there was no need for registration of Badiga Brothers & Co., since they were doing only transporting of limestone from the limestone Mine to the factory. His submission is that the establishment is a cement manufacturing concern; that transport of limestone Mine from the limestone Mine to the factory premises cannot be construed as a work in connection with the work of the establishment and so the registration of Badiga Brothers & Co., Contractor is not required under the provisions of the Act and hence none of the breaches alleged were made and on this ground, the entire prosecution is liable to be quashed. 5. I have heard Mr.K. Ilias Ali learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government appearing for the respondent, on the above aspects. 6. The question that falls for consideration is whether the transport of limestone, from the limestone Mine to the factory premises of the establishment, concerned with manufacture of cement is to be construed as a work in connection with the work of an establishment and whether this work of transporting by Badiga Brothers & Co., is to be construed as an undertaking to pro duce a given result for the establishment so as to bring the workman concerned with the above transporting work within the definition of a workman in Sec. 2(B) of the Act and bring the contractor engaged in such transportation within the definition of "Contractor" as defined in Sec. 2(C) of the Act. The further question that falls for consideration is whether the non-entry of such a contractor in the ‘register of contracts’ and non-intimation of engagement of such contractors as contractors and not sending up notice showing the commencement of work by such a contractor would constitute breaches of Rules 74, 18(4) and 81(3) respectively: 7. For considering the submissions with regard to the above aspects, I have to refer to certain provisions made in the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. A workman who shall be deemed to be employed as "contract labour, contractor and principal employer" have been defined in Sec. 2(b)(c) and (g) of the Act. They read as follows: "Sec. 2(b): A workman shall be deemed to be employed as "contract labour" in or in connection with the work of an establishment when he is hired in or in connection with such work by or through a con tractor, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer; Sec. 2(c): "contractor", in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor; Sec. 2(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 officer 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, 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 responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment. 8. Sec.7 makes registration obligatory for certain establishments and it reads as follows: .1. 8. Sec.7 makes registration obligatory for certain establishments and it reads as follows: .1. Every principal employer of an establishment to which this Act applies shall within such period as the appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix in this behalf with respect to establishments generally or with respect to any class of them, make an application to the registering officer in the prescribed manner for registration of the establishment: Provided that the registering officer may entertain any such application for registration after expiry of the period fixed in this behalf, if the registering officer is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. 2. If the application for registration is complete in all respects, the registering officer shall register the establishment and issue to the principal employer of the establishment a certificate of registration containing such particulars as may be prescribed. 9. Sec. 9 gives out the effect of non-registration. As per Sec. 9, no principal employer of an establishment to which this Act applies, shall employ contract labour in the establishment after the expiry of the period referred to in clause (a) or after the revocation of registration referred to in clause (b), That would mean that when there is no direct registration in force, no principal employer can employ a contract labour. Sec. 12 provides for licensing of contracts. .10. In the instant case, the allegation in the complaint is that M/s. Associated Cement Company Limited is the principal employer as defined under Sec. 2(g). The breaches alleged are on the premises that M/s.Badiga Brothers & Company would be a contractor as defined under Sec. 2(c) of the Act. So the primary concern in this petition is to see whether according to the allegations made in the complaint they are "contractors" under the Act. While considering it, incidentally the question as to who is a workman who shall be deemed to be employed as a contract labour, as defined in Sec. 2(b) would also come in. The allegation is that M/s.Badiga Brothers & Co., are contractors for transportation of limestone from the limestone mine of Associated Cement Company Limited to Associated Cement Company cement factory at Madukkarai. As I have already indicated, the work of the establishment is manufacture of cement. The allegation is that M/s.Badiga Brothers & Co., are contractors for transportation of limestone from the limestone mine of Associated Cement Company Limited to Associated Cement Company cement factory at Madukkarai. As I have already indicated, the work of the establishment is manufacture of cement. As such any workman in connection with the work of an establishment, shall be deemed to be employed as a contract labour. The work of taking the limestone which is absolutely necessary, for the manufacture of the cement from the limestone mine to the factory premises, is definitely a work in connection with the work of an establishment. So far as the contractor is concerned, he is a person who undertakes to produce a given result to the establishment. When a particular raw material is required for the manufacture or to the finished product, the transport of the same from the mine of the factory to the factory premises is a process in respect of which a given result is expected for the establishment. A mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment is excluded from the definition in Sec. 2(c). Transport of the articles of manufacture in such establishment is not excluded. From its very nature, an undertaking to produce a given result with regard to the same cannot fall within the said definition. 11. In Union of India v. P. Perumal, (1991) L.W. (Crl.) 495, a similar question came up for consideration before Justice Padmini Jesudurai. In the said decision learned Judge has held as follows: "In the instant case, M/s.Burn Standard Company Limited was engaged in producing minerals and had its own quarries in Red Hills and Karuppur. Magnesite ore was quarried by the company. The object of quarrying the mineral ore, was to bring it to the factory for the purpose of manufacture of minerals. The quarried ore had to be transported from the quarrying site to the factory site. This transport was an activity of the company. Instead of itself transporting the ore by engaging labour and vehicles, the company had entered into a contract with the respondent, for transporting the quarried ore to the factory site. The transport was an activity of the establishment, which under the contract, the respondent had undertaken to perform. The transport was for the purpose of the company and not for the purpose of the respondent. The transport was an activity of the establishment, which under the contract, the respondent had undertaken to perform. The transport was for the purpose of the company and not for the purpose of the respondent. This would fall within the definition in Sec. 2(1)(b) of the Act and the labour employed by the respondent is "Contract labour". The respondent would come within the purview of the Act and Rules, under both the above provisions of law." I am in respectful agreement with the view of the learned Judge. The facts of the instant case are similar and hence the ratio of this ruling clearly applies to this case. 12. In The State of Gujarat v. Sarabhai Chimanlal and Company, (1984)2 L.L.J. 334 , a similar question arose. In it, Division Bench of Gujarat High Court had referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gammon India Limited v. Union of India, (1974)1 L.L.J. 489 . The learned Judges have referred to the observations of the Apex Court made in the said ruling and then have stated as follows: "The above observation clearly indicates that if the work of the contractor is part and parcel of the work of the establishment and is not a separate activity carried on by the contractor for his own purpose then such work would definitely be the work of an establishment. However, what is to be seen in each particular case is as to what is the main purpose of the activity carried on by the person. If the main purpose of the activity is totally unrelated to the activity of the establishment though incidentally it may be pertaining to the work undertaken by the establishment then such an activity undertaken by the person would not be covered by the mischief of the provision. In each particular case, therefore, what is to be determined is as to whether there is a direct nexus between the activity of the establishment and the activity of the person with whom the establishment has entered into some transaction." 13. In the instant case, the activity of Badiga Brothers & Co., was to transport limestone from Walayar limestone mine of Associated Cement Company to the Associated Cement Company cement factory at Madukkarai. In the instant case, the activity of Badiga Brothers & Co., was to transport limestone from Walayar limestone mine of Associated Cement Company to the Associated Cement Company cement factory at Madukkarai. It is relevant to note that the limestone, which was to be transported was from the limestone mine of Associated Cement Company itself to Associated Cement Company Cement Factory at Madukkarai. The facts of the case in Union of India v. P. Perumal, (1991) L.W. (Crl.) 495, supra, are almost the same. In that case, the establishment was engaged in producing minerals and had its own quarries in Red Hills and Karuppur. Magnesite ore was quarried by the company and the object of quarrying was to bring it to the factory for the purpose of manufacture of minerals. The quarried ore had to be transported from quarrying site to the factory site. This transport was an activity of the company. Instead of itself transporting the ore, by engaging labour and vehicle the company had entered into a contract with the contractor for transporting the quarried ore to the factory site. On the above facts, 1991 L.W. (Crl.) 495 was decided. In the instant case, similar facts exist. Walayar limestone mine is that of Associated Cement Company. It is for the purpose of manufacture of cement. It has to be transported from the lime stand mine to the factory site. Instead of itself transporting limestone, by engaging labour and vehicle, the company had entered into an agreement with M/s. Badiga Brothers & Co., for transport of the same from the limestone mine of Associated Cement Company to Associated Cement Company Cement factory. So it definitely would fall within the definition of Sec. 2(i)(b) of the Act. The ruling in 1991 L.W. (Crl.) 495, with which I am in respectful agreement, squarely applies to the facts of this case. 14. So it definitely would fall within the definition of Sec. 2(i)(b) of the Act. The ruling in 1991 L.W. (Crl.) 495, with which I am in respectful agreement, squarely applies to the facts of this case. 14. In B.B. Bhat v. State of Karnataka, (1979) M.L.J. (Crl.) 388, the contractor was carrying on contract work of transporting Manganese Ore from Bisgod, Tarakabail and Dandeli to Belakeri Port, as per the contract entered into between the contractor and Mysore Minerals Ltd. It was held that such a contractor docs not fall within the definition of ‘contractor’ as defined in Sec. 2(1)(c) of the Act, because of the existence of the following clause "other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such cstablishmenl"and because the above transport would fall within the said clause. In this case, the facts do not disclose that the mines from which Manganese Ore was transported belonged to the Mysore Minerals Ltd. It is not a case where the ore was transported from the mines of the establishment to the factory site of the establishment. The facts of this case are different from the facts of the case before me and hence this ruling is not applicable to the instant case. 15. In view of the above, I am unable to accept the submissions made by Mr.T.S. Gopalan and consequently the petition fails and shall stand dismissed.