Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order of cognizance dated 9-12-1993 passed by Chief Judicial Magitrate, Hazaribagh and the entire criminal proceeding relates to Case No. G-395/93 pending before S. D. J. M., Hazaribagh. 2. The fact in short for the purpose of this application is that the complainant is the Labour Superintendent, Hazaribagh filed the aforesaid complaint case under Sections 23/24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (to be called hereinafter only Act) as against the Managing Director, Bihar Alloy Steel Ltd. which is a registered Company having Head Office at Calcutta but the factory is situated in Balkudra, District-Hazaribagh. It has been alleged that on 28-7-1993 the aforesaid factory was inspected by Deputy Commissioner, Labour, Hazaribagh who is the Inspector under the said Act and it was found that 15 contractors who were doing work and under them there were 425 labourers though according to the registration six contractors were registered having total number of workers as 368 only and it was further detected that change in the Board of Directors of the Company was not notified to the licensing authority and also in the register maintained by the contractors for payment of wages to the labourers were not certified by the principal employer and as such a show-cause notice dated 29-7-1993 was issued to the Managing Director for compliance of the defects but the principal employer had not removed all the defects. So the complaint was instituted under the said Act and the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 9-12-1993. The petitioner is admitted Managing Director of the Company filed this application for quashing the criminal proceeding mainly of the ground that the petitioner is no doubt a Managing Director but he is posted at Calcutta and not at the site and he is not responsible for supervising day to day work and further he is not the principal employer of the factory rather the factory Manager who had been notified as such and approved by the factory Inspector, is actually the principal employer. Moreover there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in the capacity of Managing Director that he is responsible for day to day affairs and violation of the provision of the Act and further in the complaint petition itself it has not been mentioned that the complainant has been declared Inspector under the said Act and as such he has a right to institute the complaint. On the aforesaid ground the prayer was made for quashing the entire criminal prosecution. 3. On behalf of O. P. that is the Labour Superintendent, Hazaribagh a counter-affidavit has also been filed and it was submitted that actually the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Inspector under the Act inspected the factory situates within the District of Hazaribagh on 28-7-1993 and found the aforesaid irregularities as mentioned in the complaint petition and then the complaint was filed and the complainant is also Inspector under Act and as such he is competent to file the complaint. Further more it was sumbitted that the petitioner being the Managing Director of the Company under Section 25 of the Act is responsible for violation of the provision of the Act and as such criminal liability, if any, also lies with the petitioner who is the Managing Director. Accordingly, it was submitted that the petition for quashing may be dismissed. 4. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that admittedly the petitioner is the Managing Director of the Company and in fact Company has not been made an accused in the complaint petition and practically there is no reference in the complaint petition that the petitioner as a Managing Director is responsible for the affairs of the work of the Company and also not responsible for compliance of the various provision of the Act and unless there is such specific allegation the criminal prosecution under the Act is not maintainable and further the factory manager in Incharge of the factory and he is responsible under the Act and he has been declared as principal employer by the Company under the Factory Act duly accepted by the Factory Inspector as per Annexure 2. It was further sub-mitted that under Section 2 (g) (ii) of the Act if violation is in respect of a factory the owners or occupiers of the Factory and a person who has been named as Manager of the Factory under the Factories Act, 1948 will be deemed to be the principal employer and the prosecution will be launched as against the principal employer and in the instant case the factory manager has already been named as a principal employer under the Factory Act. In suprort of this contention reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner of some authorities of our own Court reported in 1986 Lab IC 184G.Garcha v. State of Bihar and Ors., and that of 1986 Lab IC 2003 ; Indian Iron & Steel Company Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 5. Admittedly the violation was in respect of factories and according to the counter-affidavit also and also from Annexure 2 it can be said that the factory manager was declared as principal employer under the Factory Act. In that view of matter, the factory is the principal employer and he is to be prosecuted for violation of the various provisions of the Act but that has not been done and so in view of the authorities cited above there is no two opinions that the prosecntion as against the petitioner who is admittedly is not the principal employer is not maintainable as admittedly factory manager had already been declared as principal employer. 6. Similarly no doubt it was also contended on behalf of the O. P. that under Section 25 of the Act the petitioner being the Managing Director and responsible and Incharge of the Company for the conduct of his business is also liable to be prosecuted for various irregularities. In this case it can be said practically there is no allegation in the complaint petition that the petitioner as a Managing Director is responsible for managing the entire affairs of the Company and responsible to the Company and moreover the Company and itself had not been made an accused in the complaint petition. In that view of the matter in view of the authorities cited above prosecution against the petitioner is not maintainable. In that view of the matter in view of the authorities cited above prosecution against the petitioner is not maintainable. The the third ground taken on behalf of the petitioner that actually the entire inspection was done by Deputy Labour Commissioner and according to the complaint petition the Deputy Commissioner, Labour is Inspector under the Act and as such the complaint filed by the Labour Superintendent appear to be illegal and not maintainable. On the other hand in the counter affidavit it has also been mentioned that the complainant had also been declared as Inspector. So in my view, this point is not at all to be examined at this stage and it is a question of evidence if at all that complainant is competent to institute the complaint. 7. However, from the discussions made above the case as against the petitioner is not maintainable as he is not the principal employer and also for the reasons that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner that he is managing day to day affairs of the Company and responsible for the violation under the Act and the Company itself had not been made an accused. Accordingly this application is allowed and the order of cognizance dated 9-12-1993 passed in Case No G-395/93 and the entire criminal prosecution as against the petitioner pending before the S. D. J, M., Hazari-bagh is hereby quashed.