Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1426 (JHR)

Debashish Chatterjee v. State of Jharkhand

2008-12-10

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2008
Order Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Y.N. Mishra, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this application is to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against him including the order dated 10.2.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 31 of 2004 (T.R. No. 977 of 2004) whereby cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 has been taken. 3. The facts in short giving rise to this application are that the opposite party no. 2 i.e. the Labour Enforcement Officer, Ranchi, an Inspector under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 filed a complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh which was registered as Complaint Case No. 31/2004 naming five accused persons in the complaint including the petitioner Debashish Chatterjee as General Manager, Kuju, Central Coalfields Limited, Kuju Area, Hazaribagh. 4. The other accused named in the Complaint Petition are the Company i.e. Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, J.P. Sharma, the General Manager (Transport), Project Manager of Ara Colliery and M/s Alok Coal Transport Agency through Shri R.P. Shrivastava. 5. In the complaint petition, it has been alleged that the accused mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 namely the Central Coalfields Limited through J.P. Sharma, Chairman-cum-Managing Director and P.V.L.N. Prasad, General Manager (Transport), Darbhanga House, Central Coalfields Limited being the principal offender approved the job of loading and transportation of coal from Ara Colliery to Chainpur Feeder Breaker/Kari Bandha Local Sale Point for execution by contractor/contract labour and within their knowledge the job of loading of coal through the contract labour was being done, which was prohibited under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The accused at serial nos. 3 and 4 i.e. the present petitioner i.e. the General Manager and the Project Manager were getting the work of loading and transporting of coal done through the contractor/contract labour, which was prohibited under the Act. The accused no. 5 mentioned in the complaint being the contractor agency, was the abettor since he engaged workers in loading and transportation of coal. The accused no. 5 mentioned in the complaint being the contractor agency, was the abettor since he engaged workers in loading and transportation of coal. As per allegations in the complaint, the establishment of the accused persons was inspected on 11.11.2003 and in course of inspection, it was detected that 14 workers were found engaged through M/s Alok Coal Transport Agency who were executing the work of loading coal besides transportation from Ara Colliery to Chain pur Feeder Breaker/ Kari Bandha Local Sale Point which was prohibited under the Notification S.O. No. 2063 dated 2.7.1998 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and thereby it was alleged that the accused persons contravened and violated the provisions of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 which was punishable under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. 6. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of the said complaint, took cognizance for the offence under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 against the accused persons named in the complaint petition including the petitioner by order dated 10.2.2004. 7. This order taking cognizance as well as the entire criminal proceeding is being challenged in this application by the petitioner on the ground that the order taking cognizance suffers from non-application of mind. Secondly, that even according to the allegations made in the complaint petition, no offence punishable under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 is made out because the alleged violation of Government Notification does not constitute violation of any enforceable law under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and thirdly, that the petitioner was not the principal employer and the complaint petition does not specifically alleged that the petitioner was responsible for the day-to-day management of the affairs of the colliery. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Y.N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that this very order of taking cognizance dated 10.2.2004 in this complaint was challenged by one of the co-accused J.P. Sharma i.e. the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company on the same very ground which has been raised in this application and a Single Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 15.6.2007 in Cr. 2 submitted that this very order of taking cognizance dated 10.2.2004 in this complaint was challenged by one of the co-accused J.P. Sharma i.e. the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company on the same very ground which has been raised in this application and a Single Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 15.6.2007 in Cr. M.P. No. 651 of 2004 reported in 2007(3) JLJR 465 disposed of the same along with other two similar applications namely Cr. M.P. Nos. 639 of 2004 and 658 of 2004. All the three quashing applications were dismissed and it was held that the Chairman-cum Managing Director of the Company has to owe the liability of the violation of the provisions of the Act in the capacity of the representative of the Company. It was also held that the violation of the Notification issued in exercise of the powers under Section 10(1) of the Act would constitute not only violation of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act but it also invites penal consequences under the Act. 9. In the present case, the petitioner is the General Manager of that Area of the C.C.L., where the work of loading and transportation of coal was being executed through the contractor/contract labour and the allegations in the complaint petition is that he and the other co-accused i.e. the Project Manager was getting the work executed through labour contract. Therefore, the petitioner, being the General Manager of the Colliery cannot be absolved from the liability of violation of the Notification under Section 10 of the Act made by the Central Government. The present case is covered by the aforementioned decision of this Court in the case of J.P. Sharma vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2007(3) JLJR 465 [Cr. M.P. Nos. 639 of 2004, 651 of 2004 and 658 of 2004]. 10. In this view of the matter, having found no merit, this application is dismissed.