( 1 ) BASED on the complaint lodged by the respondent herein under Section 24 of the contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short 'the Act'), the proceedings in cc No. 24/05 are initiated on the file of the metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-I, bangalore. The accused therein have filed this petition seeking quashing of the proceedings. ( 2 ) THE records disclose that the Labour enforcement Officer inspected the premises of city Bank, M. G. Road, Bangalore on June 10, 2004 and noticed certain deficiencies in the matter of maintenance of certain records. The main complaint of the respondent seems to be: (i) There was no display of abstract of the act. (ii) The register of persons employed is not in the prescribed form. (iii) The muster roll is not maintained for october 8, 2004 and it is not in the prescribed form etc. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the second petitioner/company is a registered company carrying on business of providing security services for various clients/customers. The first petitioner is the Regional Managing director of the Company. The company has its establishments in various cities in India and its head office is at Gurgaon, Haryana. For rendering services to various clients, offices are established in different cities of different states and one such office in Karnataka is at h. A. L. III Stage, Bangalore. The company employs security guards/security officers and all the employees are on the rolls of the company. According to the company, they have not employed contract labourers, it is emphatically submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the muster rolls and all other necessary records to be maintained as per the various statutes are maintained appropriately and are kept in the Regional Office, City Bank, iii Stage H. A. L. , Bangalore. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the appropriate Government in relation to the petitioners' Establishment is the State Government and not the Central government. The petitioners' company is not one among various institutions as noted in the definition of "appropriate Government" as defined under the provisions of Industrial disputes Act, 1947 read with definition of "appropriate Government" as defined in section 2 (1) (a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The petitioners' company is not one among various institutions as noted in the definition of "appropriate Government" as defined under the provisions of Industrial disputes Act, 1947 read with definition of "appropriate Government" as defined in section 2 (1) (a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. ( 4 ) AS could be seen from the definition of the appropriate Government as found in Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act, the definition of appropriate government as found in the Industrial Disputes act is adopted therein. Under the definition of"appropriate Government" as contained in industrial Disputes Act, certain industries/establishments are notified which will come under the authority of Central government. Admittedly, the petitioners' company does not come within the list of the establishments found therein. It is also not the case of the respondent that the Central government has got control over the petitioners' organization. Under such circumstances, the second petitioner viz. , group 4 Securities Guarding Ltd. , is an establishment of which the appropriate government is not the Central Government. Therefore, the complaint lodged by the respondent/officer of the Central Government is not maintainable. Hence the proceedings initiated on the basis of the complaint lodged by the respondent are liable to be quashed. Hence the following order is made: the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings in CC No. 24/05 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court I, bangalore are quashed. " --- *** --- .