Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This is an application under Sec.482, of the cr. P. C. for quashing the entire proceeding bearing C. L. A. No.44 of 1991 pending in the Court of C. J. M. , Dhanbad. 2. The fact in short for the purpose of this application is that O. P. No.1, Le. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), dhanbad filed the aforesaid complaint as against the petitioner as a partner of a firm Le. M/s. C. K. Ahuja and another partner D. K. Ahuja under Sections 23 and 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (to be called here-in-after only the Act ). There is allegation that the firm of the petitioner was contractor and had taken construction work of contract from b C. C. L. regarding construction of quarter for the miners. It has also been alleged that the establishment of the company was inspected by the Labour enforcement Officer and various irregularities in violation of the Rules and the provision of the Act were detected so the aforesaid complaint was filed. 3. In this quashing application the only point raised on behalf of petitioner that actually the petitioner is merely a contractor and doing civil work of construction of the quarter under the B. C. C. L. and he has nothing to do with the coal mining operation and the establishment of the petitioner is not under the control of B. C. C. L. in any way. So the establishment of the petitioner which does not come within the purview of control of the Central government. In that view of the matter, the State Government is the competent authority so far as the establishment of the petitioner is concerned and the Inspector appointed by the state Government under the said Act is competent to inspect for any of the violation and to institute the criminal case. As such the inspection and institution of the criminal case by the complainant who had been appointed inspector by the Central Government is without any jurisdiction and illegal and so the criminal case will not proceed. As such the inspection and institution of the criminal case by the complainant who had been appointed inspector by the Central Government is without any jurisdiction and illegal and so the criminal case will not proceed. On the other hand it was contended on behalf of O. P. that certainly the b. C. C. L. is doing mining operation in coal and is the principal employer and the petitioner is doing the contract work no doubt civil construction work but for the B. C. C. L. and also in connection with the mining operation work. In that view of the matter, the establishment of the petitioner is to be inspected by the Inspector appointed by the Central Government and so the o. P. is competent to inspect and institute this case. 4. No doubt learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a division Bench authority of our own high Court reported in M/s. Me Nally bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. V/s. State of bihar, 1996 (2) Eastern India Criminal cases page 527, but now the matter is well decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dipak Kumar sarkar @ Dipak Sarkar and others V/s. State of Bihar and others, "reported in 1997 Vol.1 Eastern India Criminal cases page 791. In Dipak Sarkara case (supra) the Division Bench has clearly held that if for the principal employer the appropriate Government is central Government then in that contingency any contractor doing work under the same principal employer will also be governed by the same provision and for that establishment the appropriate Government will. be the central Government. In that case also the petitioner claimed that so far as the establishment is concerned the appropriate Government will not be the central Government rather the State government for the reasons that the company was doing contract work under the TISCO and they had nothing to do with the mining operation similar to the instant case. But it was held in that case by the Division Bench after considering various authorities of the supreme Court and that of other High courts that if in case of principal employer the appropriate Government will be the Central Government then the contractor doing work for the principal employer is also covered by that provision and in that contingency appropriate Government will be the central Government. So this case is also fully covered by the principle laid down in Dipak Sarkars case (supra)and now the controversy is well decided. 5. Under the circumstances so far as the establishment of the petitioner is concerned the appropriate Government is the Central Government. In that view of the matter, prosecution by Labour enforcement Officer (Central), Dhanbad under the said Act is not suffering from any infirmity. Accordingly, this application is rejected. Application Rejected.