Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1154 (JHR)

P. v. L. N. Prasad VS State of Jharkhand

2017-07-17

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Laxman Kumar, learned counsel for O.P. No.2. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 24 of 2004, including the order dated 13.1.2004, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Chatra, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence under Section 23 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. (Hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Allegation made in the complaint petition is that the accused persons mentioned at serial Nos. 1 and 2 being the Principal Offender had approved the job of loading of coal for execution by contractor/contract labour and on inspection it was found that the contract labours were engaged for executing the work of loading of coal besides transportation of coal from Piparwar Mines to Dakra Railway siding, which was prohibited by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide notification No. S.O. 2063 dated 2.7.1998. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the show-cause notice, prior to institution of the complaint case, Project Officer, Piparwar C.H.P., M/s. Central Coalfields Limited was arrayed as the Principal Employer. It has further been submitted that the petitioner being the Chief General Manager, Transport, at the relevant point of time, cannot be said to be a Principal Employer as he is not even the representative of the Principal Employer to enter into the agreement with the contractor. Learned counsel submits that once the Principal Employer has been identified by the department, the petitioner in his capacity of Chief General Manager, Transport, could not have been prosecuted for committing an offence under Section 23 of the Act. It has also been submitted that unloading of coal was done mechanically as heavy earth moving machineries were engaged and there was no complain of any manual loading or unloading of coal. Learned counsel therefore submits that hiring of heavy machineries does not attract violation of Notification issued under Section 10(1) of the Act. Learned counsel submits that in Piparwar Area, Chief General Manager, General Manager, have been hold to be the competent authorities responsible for the compliance of the statutory provisions of all the labour laws. Learned counsel therefore submits that hiring of heavy machineries does not attract violation of Notification issued under Section 10(1) of the Act. Learned counsel submits that in Piparwar Area, Chief General Manager, General Manager, have been hold to be the competent authorities responsible for the compliance of the statutory provisions of all the labour laws. The petitioner being the Chief General Manager, Transport is not covered within the said office order and therefore cannot be termed to be a Principal Employer for the purposes of Section 2(g)(iii) of the Act. 5. Learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 on the other hand has submitted that petitioner exercised control over Piparwar Project of M/s. CCL and therefore he was also responsible for violating the Notification of the Central Government prohibiting contract labour with respect to loading and unloading of coal. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner being a responsible authority of the company is directly liable for the offence. 6. Show-cause notice, which was initially issued by the complainant, reveals that in the inspection report the name of the Principal Employer has been shown to be the Project Officer, Piparwar Area, C.H.P., CCL. When the Principal Employer in terms of Section 2(g)(iii) had already been identified making the petitioner an accused in his capacity of a Chief General Manager is nothing but to harass the petitioner. The petitioner was the Chief General Manager (Transport) who, was posted in the headquarters and therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner was directly responsible for violation of the Notification as alleged. Moreso, in view of the fact that the Project Officer, Piparwar C.H.P. had already been arrayed as an accused in his capacity of being the Principal Employer. 7. In such circumstances, therefore, continuation of the criminal proceeding as against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of Court and would lead to a miscarriage of justice and accordingly in view of what has been stated above, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 24 of 2004, including the order dated 13.1.2004, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence under Section 23 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 is hereby quashed and set aside so far as petitioner is concerned. Application allowed.