Judgment 1. The proceedings in pursuance of a private complaint filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Shastri Bhavan,Chennai in C.C.No.5107 of 1996 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town,Chennai for the offences under Secs.23 and 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, as against the petitioners (A-l and A-2) are sought to be quashed in this petition filed under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. 2. The facts that are necessary for disposal of this petition are as follows: The first petitioner is the Chief Manager (Retail Banking), Grindlays Bank, Rajaji Salai,Chennai and the second petitioner is the Chief Executive Officer, A.N.Z. Grindlays Bank, Mumbai. On 5.6.1996, the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Madras inspected the A.N.Z Grindlays Bank, 19, Rajaji Salai,Madras, an establishment under the control of the accused, and observed that Sec.10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, was contravened. As per Notification No.S.O.779 (E) dated 9.12.1976, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-sec.(1) Sec.10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, prohibited the employment of contract labour on and from 1.3.1977 for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of building owned or occupied by the establishment. On inspection, it was found that 2 supervisors and 32 guards were employed oh three shifts for the work of watching of the build-ing of A.N.Z Grindlays Bank at N.19, Rajaji Salai,Chennai. Therefore, on the same day, a show cause notice was issued by the complainant to the petitioners (A-l and A-2) and other contractors (A-4 and A-5) as to why legal action should not be taken against them under Secs.23 and 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The first petitioner and the second petitioner had received the show cause notice. However, one J.P Scurville (A3) claiming himself as the Premises Officer of A.N.Z Grindlays Bank, 19 Rajaji Salai,Chennai, sent a reply to the complainant on 28.6.1996 stating that he was responsible for all administrative functions of the office premises and that the bank has not engaged any watchman on contract to watch the building. However, one J.P Scurville (A3) claiming himself as the Premises Officer of A.N.Z Grindlays Bank, 19 Rajaji Salai,Chennai, sent a reply to the complainant on 28.6.1996 stating that he was responsible for all administrative functions of the office premises and that the bank has not engaged any watchman on contract to watch the building. Since the reply was not satisfactory, the complainant filed the complaint against the petitioners and others before the lower court, which it turn took the case on file on 3.9.1996 in C.C.No.5107 of 1996 for the offences under Secs.23 and 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. On service of summons, the petitioners have approached this Court and filed this petition for quashing. 3. Mr.Gopinath, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, would contend that both the petitioners have nothing to do with the day-to-day affairs of the Branch at No.19, Rajaji Salai,Chennai and the reply to the show cause notice was sent by the bank through its premises officer (A-3) on 28.6.1996 stating that he alone was responsible for the administrative function to be performed at the said branch and neither of the petitioners have any role in running either the day-to-day operation or administration of the branch and therefore, in the absence of any material to show that they are having control over the establishment, the prosecution ought not to have proceeded against the petitioners, more particularly, when the reply of A-3 stating that he alone was responsible is to be acted upon by the prosecution. 4. Mrs.Meera Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that there are allegations in the complaint that the petitioners are the Chief Manager for the Grindlays Bankpremises at No.19, Rajaji Salai,Chennai and the Chief Executive Officer of A.N.Z. Grindlays Bank, respectively and that they as ‘principal employer’ of the bank, had committed the breach of the notification by employing the contract labour and as such, the proceedings are valid and the prosecution has been correctly launched against the petitioner also. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the respective sides and gone through the records. 6. Sec.23 of the Act contemplates that whoever contravenes any provision of this Act, or any rule made thereunder prohibiting the employment of contract labour shall be punishable. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the respective sides and gone through the records. 6. Sec.23 of the Act contemplates that whoever contravenes any provision of this Act, or any rule made thereunder prohibiting the employment of contract labour shall be punishable. Sec. 10(1) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the Central Government may prohibit by notification in the Official Gazette employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. On the basis of the powers conferred by this Section, the Central Government issued notification on 9.12.1976 prohibiting employment of contract labour for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of the building owned or occupied by the establishment. 7. There is no dispute in the fact that A.N.Z. Grindlays Bank is an establishment which is bound by the said notification. On 5.6.1996, the complainant went and inspected the A.N.Z Grindlays BankPremises at No.19, Rajaji Salai,Chennai and found that two supervisors and 32 security guards were employed through M/ s.Group-4 securities (India) Ltd.Madras which is prohibited under the notification issued under Sec. 10(1) of the Act. Immediately, a show cause notice was sent to the petitioners. There is no dispute that the same was received by both the petitioners. On 13.6.1996 however, they have not chosen to reply. On the other hand, on behalf of the bank, one J.P. Scurville claiming himself as the premises officer of the Bank sent a reply on behalf of the bank stating that the bank did not engage any supervisor and guard on contract basis, that he alone was responsible for the administrative functions to be performed at No.19 Rajaji Salai Branch and that the petitioners 1 and 2 had no role, whatsoever, in running the day-today operation or administration of the said branch. 8. A show cause notice was also sent to M/ s.Ashok Leyland Ltd.Madras. A reply was sent by M/s.Ashok Leyland Ltd. (A-4) to the complainant on 29.6.1996 stating that the security guards provided at the Grindlays Bank earlier would be withdrawn from 30.6.1996. 9. 8. A show cause notice was also sent to M/ s.Ashok Leyland Ltd.Madras. A reply was sent by M/s.Ashok Leyland Ltd. (A-4) to the complainant on 29.6.1996 stating that the security guards provided at the Grindlays Bank earlier would be withdrawn from 30.6.1996. 9. In the petition for quashing, it is stated that M/s.Ashok Leyland Ltd. (A-4) has taken the responsibility of providing security to the building as well as in respect of the movements of people in and out of the buildings and that as part of the agreement between A.N.Z. Grindlays Bank and M/s.Ashok Leyland Ltd. the bank reimburse 50 per cent of the expenses incurred by M/s.Ashok Leyland Ltd. in providing the security services. 10. It is further stated that Grindlays Bank has not directly employed any contract labour in its branch at No.19, Rajaji Salai,Madras, But, M/ s.Ashok Leyland Ltd. (A-4) entered into a contract with M/s.Group-4 securities (India) Ltd. (A-5) to provide security to the floors occupied by A.N.Z. Grindlays Bank and M/s.Ashok Leyland Ltd. and as per the understanding between the Grindlays Bank and M/s.Ashok Leyland Ltd., the bank was reimbursing 50 per cent of the costs to M/s.Ashok Leyland Ltd. 11. Thus, In the petition for quashing, the petitioner themselves admitted that on behalf of the bank, they entered into contract with its tenant M/s.Ashok Leyland Ltd. for watching the premises of the bank and hence, the petitioners who are the chief officers of the bank are covered well within the definition of ‘principal employer’ under the Act. It is also stated in the counter that the petitioners knowingly entered into contract for reimbursement of 50 per cent of the costs, as the petitioners’ bank is occupying 50 per cent of their building and that therefore, the petitioners cannot escape by saying that M/s.Ashok Leyland Ltd. is the principal employer or the premises officer (A-3) only is incharge of the administration of the bank buildings. 12. The Inspection Report shows that the Bank is the ‘principal employer’ of A.N.Z Grindlays Bank. A show cause notice was immediately issued to the petitioners, as they are the chief Manager and the Chief Executive Officer respectively of the bank. But, they have not chosen to reply to the show cause notice issued to them. 13. 12. The Inspection Report shows that the Bank is the ‘principal employer’ of A.N.Z Grindlays Bank. A show cause notice was immediately issued to the petitioners, as they are the chief Manager and the Chief Executive Officer respectively of the bank. But, they have not chosen to reply to the show cause notice issued to them. 13. The liability for contravention of provisions regarding employment of contract labour has not been statutorily fixed on the principal employer or on any person on his office. Therefore, whoever employed contract labour in violation of the notification issued under Sec.10 of the Act will be liable for conviction under Sec.23 of the Act. 14. Sec.23 of the Act itself begins with the words “whoever contravened any provision of this Act”. As such, the complainant can proceed against those persons who have contravened the said prohibition. 15. It is the case of the prosecution that they have entered into an agreement with M/s.Ashok Leyland Ltd. agreeing to reimburse 50 per cent of the expenses for the employment of the contract labour. This is not disputed. In fact, this is admitted in the petition. 16. One other thing to be noticed is that Mr.J.P.Scurville, who has sent a reply to the show cause notice on behalf of the bank that he was responsible for the administration of the entire premises, had not chosen to say the same in the writ petition filed by him on behalf of the bank in W.P.No.15625 of 1996 which was admitted on 31.10.1996 by this Court. The said writ petition was filed by the bank through its premises officer by way of challenging the show cause notice issued on 5.6.1996 and obtained the stay of the proceedings in the above complaint in C.C.No.5107 of 1996 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras. 17. In this present petition also, there is no reference about said writ petition and the interim relief obtained by the bank staying the criminal proceeding. Moreover, all the other accused in the instant complaint filed several writ petitions before this Court and obtained stay of the criminal proceedings on earlier dates under the garb of challenging the show cause notice. 18. The only ground urged in the quashing application is that the petitioners are not responsible for the contravention of the provisions of the Act and A-3 alone was responsible. 18. The only ground urged in the quashing application is that the petitioners are not responsible for the contravention of the provisions of the Act and A-3 alone was responsible. In the reply sent by A-3 to the Department, he has not whispered about either the understanding between the bank and M/s.Ashok Leyland Ltd. or the contract between M/s.Ashok Leyland Ltd. (A-4) and the Group-4 Securities (India) Ltd. (A-5), Under these circumstances, this Court at this stage would not be able to say that the petitioners are not responsible for the above said agreement or contract entered into between the bank and other accused. 19. When the criminal proceedings are challenged by the Manager of a company on the ground that there is no basic averment in the complaint, the Apex Court in Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan, A.I.R.1983 S.C. 67while rejecting the said argument, observed as follows: “So far as the Manager is concerned, we are satisfied that from the very nature of his duties it can be inferred that he would undoubtedly be vicariously liable for the offence; vicarious liability being an incident of an offence under the Act.” 20. So, when the petitioners are said to be the Chief Manager and the Chief Executive Officer respectively of the bank, this Court, at this stage, cannot hold that the proceedings, as against them are invalid. In these circumstances, the prayer in the petition is liable to be rejected and accordingly, the same is rejected. 21. In the result, the petition is dismissed.