ORDER: Criminal Original Petition No.6392 of 2005 is filed to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the complaint in C.C.No.985 of 2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Sholingar and quash the same. 2. Since all these matters are similar in nature and the contentions raised in each one of them are also similar, these petitions are taken up together and a common order is being passed. 3. Crl.O.P.No.6392 of 2005 is filed by one G.K.Venkatesan, who is said to be one of the Contractors of Brakes India Limited, Foundry Division, Pandiyanallur, Sholingar. The respondent/Inspector of Factories, Vellore, filed a case against the petitioner on the ground that he had contravened the provisions of Secs.29(1) and (2), Rule 75 and Secs.29(1) and (2), Rule 76(1) and Secs.29(1) and (2), Rule 76(ii) under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and Tamil Nadu Contract Labour Rules, 1975, alleging that on inspection by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Vellore in the factory premises of Brakes India Foundry Division, Sholingar, on 20.5.2003 at about 3.00 p.m., he found contravention of the provisions of Contract Labour Act and Rules. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint filed by the Inspector of Factories, Vellore, is in contravention of the Act including Sec.26 and Sec.28 of the said Act. Sec.26 runs as follows: No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by or with the previous sanction in writing of, the inspector and no Court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.” Sec.28 runs as follows: (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be inspectors for the purposes of this Act and define the local limits within which they shall exercise their powers under this Act. (2) ...... an inspector may, within the local limits for which he is apointed: (a) enter .... any premises ..... for the purposes of examining any register or record or notices required to be kept or exhibited by or under this Act or rules made thereunder and require the production thereof for inspection. (b) examine any person ....who, he has reasonable cause to belief, is a workman ..... any premises ..... for the purposes of examining any register or record or notices required to be kept or exhibited by or under this Act or rules made thereunder and require the production thereof for inspection. (b) examine any person ....who, he has reasonable cause to belief, is a workman ..... (c) require any person giving out work and any workman, to give any information ........ and with respect to the payments to be made for the work; (d) seize or take copies of such register ..... as he may consider relevant in respect of an offence under this Act which he has reason to believe has been committed by the principal employer or contractor; and (e) exercise such other powers as may be prescribed. ....” 5. Originally, there was a notification issued in G.O. Ms. No.118 Labour and Employment, dated 12.4.1991, whereby the powers were delegated to various officials and in supersession of that G.O. and also in exercise of powers granted under Sec.28 of the Act. G.O.Ms.No.229, Labour and Employment H1, dated 22.12.99 was passed in and by which the Government had appointed Deputy Commissioner of Labour-1, Chennai, Assistant Commissioner of Labour-1 in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-1, Chennai, and inspectors of Labour, Chennai to be inspectors for the purposes of the said Act and define the local limits within which they shall exercise their powers under the said Act. 6. Thus, on and from 22.12.1999, the statutory inspectors under Sec.28 of the said Act for Vellore District are the inspectors of Labour, besides Deputy Commissioner of Labour and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, working in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai. 7. The present complaint was subsequent to the inspection made on 20.5.2003. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the Factory Inspector who is the complainant herein was not authorised to file the complaint and so the complainant do not have the legal sanctity as it was a clear violation of the Government notification issued under Sec.28 of the Act. 8. I have carefully gone into the aspects of the case and I find that the complaint was filed by a person who was not authroised to do so under the Act. 8. I have carefully gone into the aspects of the case and I find that the complaint was filed by a person who was not authroised to do so under the Act. The authorities have not taken care to see that only under notification in G.O.No.118, Labour and Employment dated 12.4.1991 Factory Inspector could make a complaint and that, that G.O. had been superseded and another G.O. 229 dated 22.12.1999 was passed wherein it was only Labour-1nspectors and others and not the Factory Inspectors were enabled to file such complaint. Therefore, the complaint is without legal sanction. It is not filed by a competent authority and, hence, the complaint is quashed with liberty to make a fresh complaint for future offences in accordance with law subject to limitation. These criminal original petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.Ps. are closed.