Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. Criminal Misc. Nos. 412/93(R) and 413/93(R) were taken up together and this common order will dispose of both these applications. No doubt there was earlier order that these applications 1 will be heard along with Crim. Misc. 5236/92(R) but that case had already been disposed of on 27-8-1993. 2. In Crim. Misc. No. 412/93(R), a prayer has been made for quashing the entire criminal prosecution relates to T. R. 673 of 1992 pending in the court of SDJM, Bermo and the complaint case has been filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central as against the petitioner who was at that time project officer at sawong coal washery. There is allegation that this petitioner employed contract labour in the said washery through the contractor, that is, accused No. 2 of the complaint case and, thus, liable to be punished under Section 23 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (to be called as the said Act). 3. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that admittedly the coal washery is a mine and only the principal employer is liable to be prosecuted in violation of the provisions of the Act and Section 2(g) subclause (3) clearly lays down that in a mine, the owner or agent of the mine where a person has been named as the Manager of the mine, the person so named will be the principal employer. So in view of the definition, it was contended that only the principal employer, meaning thereby the term restricted to only three persons, firstly owner, secondly the agent and also the Manager, if no named, are responsible for violation of any of the provisions of the Act. 4. In the instant case, the petitioner is neither an agent nor the owner nor is a Manager. So he is not liable for prosecution. It is true that the owner, agent or the Manager, if so named, comes within the category of principal employer and in the instant case it has not been specifically mentioned in the complaint petition that the petitioner is being prosecuted in that capacity. However, from the title of the complaint petition it appears that the petitioner has been designated as principal employer and on that basis the Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submitted that the petitioner is the principal employer and he has been named as such. However, from the title of the complaint petition it appears that the petitioner has been designated as principal employer and on that basis the Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submitted that the petitioner is the principal employer and he has been named as such. Under the circumstances, the petitioner of this application may very well file a petition before the SDJM Tanught in TR case No. 673 of 1992 and if the SDJM after hearing both the parties will come to the conclusion that the petitioner had not been named as a Manager of the Mine, that is, coal washery and he is not a principal employer as defined under the Act, then he can very well discharge the petitioner but if he comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is the principal employer then he will proceed against him according to law. With this observation, Crim. Misc. No. 412/93(R) is disposed of. 5. So far Crim. Misc. No. 413/93 (R) is concerned, the petitioner is Matti Panduranga Rao Adkhikari who at the relevant time was posted as a Project Officer, Sawang coal washery and there is allegation that on inspection by the complainant, it was detected that some statutory notices were not displayed in violation of some of the provisions of the rules and so the complaint case Bearing No. 2/97 under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was filed as against the petitioner. 6. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that admittedly Sawang Coal washery is a coal mine and at the relevant time, the petitioner was simply posted as a Project Officer according to the complaint petition itself and he was neither an agent nor an owner or named as a Manager. In that view of the matter, the petitioner does not come in the category of principal employer as defined in Section 2(g)(3) and as such. the case is not maintainable and so the case is not maintainable as against the petitioner. On perusal of the complaint petitioner, it can be said that the petitioner was simply prosecuted as Project Officer of Sawang coal was- hery and practically nothing has been mentioned in the entire complaint petition that he was the principal employer or even the owner, agent or Manager of the mine. 7. On perusal of the complaint petitioner, it can be said that the petitioner was simply prosecuted as Project Officer of Sawang coal was- hery and practically nothing has been mentioned in the entire complaint petition that he was the principal employer or even the owner, agent or Manager of the mine. 7. In that view of the matter, it can be said that the petitioner is not the princidal employer and so the case will not proceed as againts the petitioner. Similar view was taken in Crim. Misc. 1946/90 that a Project Officer of coal washery will not be a principal employer. In that view of the matter, continuation of case No. 22/87 as against the petitioner will be misuse and abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, Crim. Misc. No. 413/93(R) is allowed and the criminal prosecution as against the petitioner in case No. 22/87 pending before SDJM, Tenughat, is hereby quashed.