Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Nobody for respondents, though duly served for final hearing. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of complaint in Criminal Complaint Case No.658 of 2006 punishable under Section 23 of The Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, (for short the said Act) pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wani, District Yavatmal. The aforesaid complaint is based on the allegations that though Govt. Resolution dated 21.6.2013 prohibits engagement of contract labour for execution of the work of "Overburden removal and earth cutting" at coal mines, the petitioners were found to have engaged contract labour for the said work at Ukni Open Caste Mine. Therefore, it has been alleged that the petitioners were liable to penalty as prescribed under Section 23 of the said Act. 3. The notification dated 21.6.1988 prohibits employment of contract labour in the works, inter alia, the work of "Overburden removal and earth cutting" in the coal mines. The notification reads as under : "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (37 of 1970), and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour No.S.O. 488, dated 1st February, 1975, published in the Gazette of India, Part II, section 3, sub-section (ii), dated 15th February, 1975, the Central Government after consultation with the Central Board, hereby prohibits employment of contract labour in the work specified in the scheduled annexed hereto in all coal mines in the country. THE SCHEDULE 1. Raising of raising-cum-selling of coal; 2. Coal loading and unloading; 3. Overburden removal and earth cutting; 4. Soft coke manufacturing; 5. Driving of stone drifts and miscellaneous stone cutting underground. THE SCHEDULE 1. Raising of raising-cum-selling of coal; 2. Coal loading and unloading; 3. Overburden removal and earth cutting; 4. Soft coke manufacturing; 5. Driving of stone drifts and miscellaneous stone cutting underground. Provided that this notification shall not apply to the following categories : (a) quarries in the north-east coal field which can only be worked for a few months every year due to heavy rainfall in the areas; (b) quarries located by the side of the river in Punch valley and similar other patch deposits which can only be worked when the level of river has gone down and during non-rainy seasons; (c) Loading coal when there is mechanical failure, failure of power or irregular supply of wagon by the railways; and (d) cutting stone drfits/faults which cannot be detected in advance and are of short duration, say up to six months." 4. A plain reading of the above referred notification will show that what has been prohibited is employing contract labour for actually executing the work as mentioned in the schedule including the work of "Overburden removal and earth cutting". It means that the contract labour which has been engaged to carry out the same manually is only in law prohibited by this notification. The notification has been issued with a view to carry out the objects of the said Act and intends to serve as a protection to contract labourers from undue exploitation. The object of the Act is to regulate contract labour employment and to prohibit it in certain circumstances and for matters connected therewith. Therefore, the only interpretation that can be given to the expression "employment of contract labour" in the notification dated 21.6.1988 is that only that contract labour which is employed or engaged to carry out the prohibited works manually is covered by this notification. 5. In the light of the interpretation so given to the notification dated 21.6.1988, it will have to be seen as to whether there are averments in the complaint or inspection report that the contract labour was engaged by the petitioners to manually carry out the work of "Overburden removal and earth cutting" by working shovels and other necessary implements. 6. On perusal of the complaint as well inspection report annexed to the notice dated 23.1.2006 (Annexure C) one can see that no such averments have been made by the respondent/complainant. 6. On perusal of the complaint as well inspection report annexed to the notice dated 23.1.2006 (Annexure C) one can see that no such averments have been made by the respondent/complainant. It is only vaguely stated that the work of "Overburden removal and earth cuttings was being executed through contract labourers. It has not been elaborated as to what the contract labourers were doing at the place inspected by the Inspector. It is also not explained as to whether they were seen to be digging the earth, excavating the earth material, filling the same in bowls and remaining earth material from one place to another. Thus, the complaint itself is based upon vague allegations and such vague allegations cannot be said to be sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 23 of the said Act. 7. The affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no.1/complainant shows that according to respondent no.1 even hiring of machineries for the purposes of carrying out the work of "Overburden removal and earth cutting" through excavation, digging etc. which are operated by contract labour are covered by the provisions of notification dated 21.6.1988. This reply thus accepts the fact that the said work was being executed by the petitioners not manually but mechanically by engaging heavy earth moving machineries, the contract in respect of which had been awarded to respondent No.2 by the petitioners. Therefore, what remains to be seen is as to whether the operators of such machineries, who are the contract labour provided by respondent no.3, would be covered by the notification dated 21.6.1988 and this issue has already been answered by me by finding that that the only interpretation that can be placed upon the said notification is that it covers only those contract labourers who are engaged to carryout the prohibited works manually. As such, the notification would not be applicable to the contract labourers who are engaged to operate the machineries employed for carrying out the prohibited works mechanically. 8. In this view of the matter, I find that the allegations made in the complaint even when accepted as they are, do not constitute any offence muchless offence under Section 23 of the said Act and, as such the complaint deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed and the complaint dated 19.4.2006 in Criminal Complaint Case No.658 of 2006 is hereby quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed and the complaint dated 19.4.2006 in Criminal Complaint Case No.658 of 2006 is hereby quashed and set aside. All the accused stand discharged from the case. Rule is made absolute in these terms.