Judgment 1. Four complaints were filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Office of Regional Labour Commissioner, Kendriyashram Sadan, as complainant against M/s Kerala State Ex-Servicemen Development and Rehabilitation Corporation, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram alleging violation of various provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 ('Act 37 of 1970', for short) as S.T.Nos.1392/08, 1393/08, 1394/08 and 1395/08. 2. The accused in the said cases, M/s Kerala State Ex-Servicemen Development and Rehabilitation Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation', for short) has come up under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for getting those complaints quashed. In all the complaints, the facts of the case noted are the same. It states that the complainant “inspected the said establishment of the accused person on 19.11.07 and observed that 202 workers were employed”, and he could note down various violations of Act 37 of 1970. A show cause notice was served on the accused and a reply was received, which according to the complainant, was not satisfactory. The said Labour Enforcement Officer, by name, Dr. Ugine Gomas J, who allegedly conducted the inspection is cited as the only witness. Document No.1 is inspection report dated 19.11.2007. Document No.2 is inspection note dated 19.11.07 prepared at the work site. Annexure No.5 notice reveal that during his so called inspection of the establishment of the accused at “Palakkad on 19.11.2007 at 16.40 hours, he could note down the irregularities noted in the Annexures.” 3. According to the petitioner, the Corporation had deployed altogether 96 security guards aged 37 for BSNL SSA at Palakkad with effect from 1st April, 2005 under separate agreements executed with 13 different Divisional Engineers. For obtaining a licence under Act 37 of 1970, the petitioner had applied along with a D.D. for Rs.75,000/- as licence fee and a D.D. for Rs.86,40,000/- as security deposit. The BSNL Palakkad have not issued Form V on the ground that the number of contract employees with any of the Divisional Engineers did not exceed 20. In order to categorize an establishment coverable under Act 37 of 1970, there should be 20 or more employees at the said establishment, as per Section 1(4) of the said Act. The specimen copy of one of such agreements has also been produced by the petitioner which reveals that in that particular case, only one security guard was employed. In order to categorize an establishment coverable under Act 37 of 1970, there should be 20 or more employees at the said establishment, as per Section 1(4) of the said Act. The specimen copy of one of such agreements has also been produced by the petitioner which reveals that in that particular case, only one security guard was employed. According to the petitioner, all the said complaints are deliberately preferred with ulterior motives and without any good faith. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. R.S. Kalkura, the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Manoj P. Kunchachan and the learned Assistant Solicitor General Sri. N. Nagersh. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that all the complaints are false and that there cannot be any such visit to the premises of the petitioner at Palakkad on 19.11.2007 as alleged, as the petitioner has no such premises at Palakkad. The one and only office of the petitioner Corporation is situated at Thiruvananthapuram and they have no other office elsewhere. The copy of the mahazar allegedly prepared by the complainant inspector shows that he had visited the premises of the petitioner at Palakkad. In the complaint also it has been specifically averred that the said inspector had inspected the premises of the petitioner at Palakkad. When these discrepancies in these complaints were noticed earlier, this Court had directed the complainant to file an affidavit describing the premises which was actually inspected by the inspector. Till now no such affidavit has been filed. It seems that the complaint as such is false and ill-motivated as alleged by the petitioner. 6. Apart from the aforesaid falsity in the complaint, the complaint is not legally maintainable also. A contractor mentioned in Act 37 of 1970 within the meaning of Section 2 (c) is a contractor in relation to an establishment. The establishment is defined in Section 2(e) of the said Act as any establishment or Department of the Government or a local authority or any place where any industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation is carried on. The documents produced along with the complaints show that the establishment was M/s KEXON for the Palakkad BSNL SSA. The person responsible for supervision of the establishment is shown as General Manager, BSNL, Palakkad. The documents produced along with the complaints show that the establishment was M/s KEXON for the Palakkad BSNL SSA. The person responsible for supervision of the establishment is shown as General Manager, BSNL, Palakkad. If, as a matter of fact, the complainant had inspected the establishment of the petitioner, such an inspection could only be conducted at Thiruvananthapuram. In the document produced along with the complaint, the complainant has clearly noted that the petitioner had employed 202 workers on 19.11.2007. It has not been made clear as to from where he could gather such an information. He has not mentioned the place at which he could see those 202 persons employed by the petitioner. The complainant has no case that he had visited the premises of the petitioner at Thiruvananthapuram and could trace out such 202 numbers of persons employed by the petitioner. It is not clear as to whether the petitioner is being proceeded against, in the capacity of a contractor or a principal employer. It seems that the complainant has considered the petitioner as a contractor as well as the principal employer of the establishment, which is not permitted under Act 37 of 1970. 7. The petitioner Corporation is a Government owned Corporation. It is a Government of Kerala undertaking and its Managing Director is being appointed by the Government of Kerala. The Corporation has been incorporated and established for the welfare of the ex-service personnel, to provide them some sort of employment. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that when the Corporation has been working effectively there are some elements, who are really engaged in the illegal supply of contract labourers, to oppose the smooth functioning of the Corporation. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the so called inspector who had allegedly inspected the premises of the petitioner was only a stooge in the hands of such unruly elements, and that these complaints are made with a view to damaging the Corporation, deserve merit. It seems that through the aforesaid four false complaints the petitioner has been dragged to courts unnecessarily. The so called inspection is patently false, and imaginary. The act of the complainant in indulging in such nefarious activities cannot be tolerated. It seems that through the aforesaid four false complaints the petitioner has been dragged to courts unnecessarily. The so called inspection is patently false, and imaginary. The act of the complainant in indulging in such nefarious activities cannot be tolerated. When it was eying on damaging the activities of a Corporation, which is an undertaking of the Government of Kerala established for the welfare and rehabilitation of the ex-service personnel, the said acts of the complainant have to be viewed very seriously. All these complaints are devoid of merits and are only to be quashed. As all the said complaints are false, unnecessary and ill-motivated, the complainant shall pay an amount of Rs.25,000/-as costs to the petitioner Corporation within a period of 30 days from today. Of course, the said amount can be recovered by the complainant from the concerned officer named Dr.Ugine Gomas J. In the result, all these Crl.M.Cs. are allowed and Annexure A4 complaints in S.T.Nos.1392/08, 1393/08, 1394/08 and 1395/08 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I Palakkad, are quashed. The complainant shall pay an amount of Rs.25,000/-as costs to the petitioner Corporation within a period of 30 days from today, and the said amount can be recovered by the complainant from the concerned officer named Dr.Ugine Gomas J. All the interlocutory applications in these appeals are closed.