ORDER : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner-accused implores to quash the proceedings in STC No.5 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal, which was registered on a private complaint filed by Assistant Labour Officer, Nandyal-II Circle-cum-Inspector under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short “the CL Act”) and its Rules. 2. The facts of the complaint succinctly are that M/s. JSW Cement Limited, Bilakalagudur Village, Gudivemula Mandal, Kurnool District is constructing a new cement factory wherein several workers from other States were employed and thereby the provisions of the CL Act are attracted. However, the said workmen were allowed to work through Contractors i.e., M/s. UB Engineering Limited, M/s. Petron Civil Engineering Private Limited, M/s. Security & Intelligence Surveys (India) Limited, M/s. A.K.Constructions etc. without registration of the establishment as required under Section 7 of the CL Act and the contractors have not obtained licenses under Section 12 of the aforesaid Act. (b) It is further averred in the said complaint that the establishment was inspected on 29.01.2011 at 1.50 P.M. by a special squad formed by Joint Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool under the control of Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nandyal, in which the complainant is one of the team members and they found that the accused was executing the contract work without holding valid license in violation of the provisions of the CL Act and its Rules. (c) The violations committed are as under: (i) Rule-81(1): The employer failed to obtain registration certificate as required under Section 7 of the Act in Form-II. (ii) Rule-74: The employer failed to maintain and produce register of contractors in Form-XII. (iii) Rule-82(2): The employer failed to submit annual return in Form No.XXV. The above accused having acted in contravention of the provisions of Section 12, Rule-75 & Rule-76 of the A.P Contract Labour (R&A) Rules, 1971, has rendered himself liable for punishment under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970. Hence, the complaint. 3. Heard Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 4. The above accused having acted in contravention of the provisions of Section 12, Rule-75 & Rule-76 of the A.P Contract Labour (R&A) Rules, 1971, has rendered himself liable for punishment under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970. Hence, the complaint. 3. Heard Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 4. The main thrust of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being a cement company, it is classified as a controlled industry by the Government of India through its notification No.S.O.757 (E) dated 08.11.1977. In terms of the CL Act and Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the ID Act”), the appropriate Government for petitioner’s company is the Central Government and, therefore, the petitioner is governed under the provisions of Central enactment i.e. CL Act and Central Rules framed thereunder and not under the A.P Contract Labour (R&A) Rules, 1971. He would strenuously argue that State of Andhra Pradesh has absolutely no locus standi to file the present complaint as the petitioner company is registered under the central enactment, but not under the State Act. The petitioner does not require any registration under the State Government laws. Hence, the State Government and its officials have no authority or power to prosecute the petitioner by filing complaint and if at all the prosecution were to be undertaken, that should be done only by the Central Government. To buttress his argument that the State Government is not the appropriate authority, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Vs. Shrinivas Narayanarao Moharil 2010 LLJ 224. (b) Nextly, he would argue that the contraventions alleged under different rules of A.P Contract Labour (R&A) Rules, 1971 are quite untenable because, the petitioner company has sufficiently complied with all the requirements under central enactment under the CL Act and its Rules. However, the complainant without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit its documents, though a reference was made during the course of inspection, has launched the prosecution. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner company has got registered under the CL Act and to that effect Registration No.09/2008 dated 08.08.2008 was granted to it by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner company has got registered under the CL Act and to that effect Registration No.09/2008 dated 08.08.2008 was granted to it by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad. Further, it has obtained registration under Section 7 (2) of the CL Act and Rules made thereunder and to that effect a certificate in Form-II was issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Hyderabad on 08.08.2008. Added to it, the petitioner has maintained the Register of Contractors in Form-XII clearly stating therein the list of contractors, who were supplying contract labourers. Therefore, the petitioner has complied with all the mandatory requirements as per the central enactment and its rules. On that ground also, the prosecution is not maintainable. He thus, prayed to quash the criminal proceedings. 5. In oppugnation, learned Additional Public Prosecutor while admitting that cement company comes under controlled industry and appropriate authority for the said industry with reference to the ID Act and CL Act is the Central Government, would however, argue that by virtue of delegation of the powers made by the Central Government in favour of State Government, the officers of the State Government are empowered to launch prosecution under CL Act for the irregularities committed by the petitioner / accused and thus prayed to dismiss the criminal petition. 6. The points for consideration are: 1) Whether the petitioner is a controlled industry in terms of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and if so, the appropriate Government for the petitioner is the Central Government? 2) If point No.1 is held affirmatively, whether the complainant being State Government Officer is legally competent to launch prosecution against the petitioner? 7. POINT No.1: Admittedly, the petitioner is a cement factory. In Para-2 of the complaint itself, it is mentioned that M/s JSW Cement Limited, Bilakalagudur (V), Gudivemula (M), Kurnool District (A.P) is constructing a new cement factory, wherein several workers of other States are employed. 8. Then coming to the application of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 to the petitioner, Section 4 delineates about the applicability of the said Act. 8. Then coming to the application of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 to the petitioner, Section 4 delineates about the applicability of the said Act. It states: (4) It applies— (a) To every establishment in which twenty or more workmen are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months as contract labour; (b) to every contractor who employees or who employed on any day of the preceding twelve months twenty or more workmen: Provided that the appropriate Government may, after giving not less than two months' notice of its intention so to do, by notification in the Official Gazette, apply the provisions of this Act to any establishment or contractor employing such number of workmen less than twenty as may be specified in the notification. 9. The applicability of the CL Act to the petitioner company is not in dispute as in the petition itself, the petitioner has mentioned that theirs is a mega cement plant of large capacity and that the petitioner had obtained registration certificate from the Central Government under the provisions of the Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970. 10. Then the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a controlled industry. Section 2 (d) of the CL Act defines “controlled industry” means any industry the control of which by the Union has been declared by the Central Act to be expedient in the public interest. It should be noted that Section 2 (ee) of the ID Act also defines the controlled industry in similar manner and the same is in pari materia with Section 2 (d) of the CL Act. (b) Be that it may, the Central Act i.e. the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 declared the cement industry as controlled industry. Section 2 of the said Act declares that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take over its control the industries specified in the First Schedule. Cement machinery and cement products are mentioned in the First Schedule. Therefore, there can be no demur that the cement industry is a controlled industry in terms of the ID Act and the CL Act. 11. Now the pertinent question is, which is the appropriate Government in respect of cement industry. Cement machinery and cement products are mentioned in the First Schedule. Therefore, there can be no demur that the cement industry is a controlled industry in terms of the ID Act and the CL Act. 11. Now the pertinent question is, which is the appropriate Government in respect of cement industry. Section 2 (a) of the CL Act defines the appropriate Government thus: 2 [(a) "appropriate Government" means,-- (i) in relation to an establishment in respect of which the appropriate Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), is the Central Government, the Central Government; (ii) in relation to any other establishment, the Government of the State in which that other establishment is situated;] As per the above provision, the appropriate Government for cement industry for the purpose of CL Act is the one, which is the appropriate Government for that industry as mentioned in the ID Act. As per Section 2 (a) (i) of ID Act, appropriate Government for controlled industry is the Central Government. Therefore, the Central Government is the appropriate Government for the controlled industry for the purpose of CL Act also. Added to it, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 2 (a) (i) of ID Act, issued notification No.S.O.757(E) dated 08.11.1977 as follows: “in pursuance of Sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby specifies, for the purposes of that sub-clause, the controlled industry engaged in the manufacture or production of cement, which has been declared as a controlled industry under Section 2 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (65 of 1951).” Thus there can be no demur that the petitioner is the controlled industry and the Central Government is its appropriate Government. This point is answered accordingly. 12. POINT No.2: The formidable contention of the petitioner is that since the petitioner company is a controlled industry and the Central Government is its appropriate Government, the officials of the State Government cannot prosecute the petitioner under A.P Contract Labour (R&A) Rules, 1971. It is argued that the Central Government alone can initiate action against the petitioner for any violations. 13. In the above context, I perused the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Workmen of Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. Vs. Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. and Ors. It is argued that the Central Government alone can initiate action against the petitioner for any violations. 13. In the above context, I perused the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Workmen of Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. Vs. Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. and Ors. MANU/KA/0535/2000 = (2001) ILLJ 621 Kant The Division Bench was dealing with the question of law as to whether the State Government can claim to be the ‘appropriate Government’ in respect of the ‘cement industry’ within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 entitling to it exercise powers under Section 10 of the said Act prohibiting employment of contract labour in the said industry. 14. It was argued before the Division Bench that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Yovan, India Cements Employees Union and Ors. Vs. Management of India Cement Ltd. and Ors. MANU/SC/0118/1994 = 1994 (1) ILLJ 920 (SC) , the appropriate Government in respect of cement industry, which is a controlled industry, includes State Government also by virtue of Central Government’s delegation of powers to the State Government under Section 39 of ID Act. 15. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, thus perused Section 39 of ID Act and notification No.S.O.826(E) dated 08.12.1977 to answer the above argument. 16. Section 39 of ID Act reads as under: 39. Delegation of powers.—The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that any power exercisable by it under this Act or rules made thereunder shall, in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the direction, be exercisable also,— (a) where the appropriate Government is the Central Government, by such officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or by the State Government, or by such officer or authority subordinate to the State Government, as may be specified in the notification; and (b) where the appropriate Government is a State Government, by such officer or authority subordinate to the State Government as may be specified in the notification. 17. 17. Exercising the power under Section 39, the Central Government delegated its powers exercisable by it under the ID Act in relation to cement industry to the State Government by notification No.S.O.826 (E) dated 08.12.1977, which reads thus: “In exercise of the powers, conferred by Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby directs that all the powers exercisable by it under that Act and the Rules made thereunder shall, in relation to the Cement Industry be exercised also by all the State Governments, subject to the condition that the Central Government shall continue to exercise all the powers under the said Act and Rules made thereunder: (i) relating to mines and quarries even where such mines and quarries form part of the Cement Industry; and (ii) relating to the dispute between the employers who are members of the Cement Manufacturers Association, Express Building, Churchgate, Bombay and their workmen represented by Indian National Cement and Allied Workers Federation, Mazdoor Karyalaya, Congress House Bombay, which has been referred for arbitration in pursuance of Section 10-A of the said Act, read with Notification No. S.O. 757-E dated November 8, 1977 (No. S. 11025/9/77/DI/(A), in terms of the arbitration agreement published by the notification by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour Order No. L.29013/2/77-D.O. 1II(B) dated November 28, 1977.” 18. The Division Bench with reference to the notification mentioned supra, observed that the State Government’s status as relating to the cement industry remains that of a delegatee of the Central Government being the appropriate Government. However, a delegatee cannot acquire a status equivalent to that of the delegator, because despite delegating its powers, the delegator is never denuded of the same. Even for the purpose of the ID Act, a State Government cannot be treated as an appropriate Government in relation to an industrial dispute concerning cement industry. 19. However, a delegatee cannot acquire a status equivalent to that of the delegator, because despite delegating its powers, the delegator is never denuded of the same. Even for the purpose of the ID Act, a State Government cannot be treated as an appropriate Government in relation to an industrial dispute concerning cement industry. 19. Then referring to Yovan’s case, wherein the Supreme Court upheld the industrial dispute referred by the Government of Tamilnadu under Section 10 (1) (c) of ID Act in relation to a cement industry in view of delegation of powers under notification dated 8.12.1977 in S.O.826(E), the Division Bench raised a question as to whether the observations made by the Supreme Court to the effect that both the Central Government and State Government are appropriate Government under the ID Act, are to be understood in the context of ID Act alone or have to be taken as a declaration of a statutory state of affairs devoid of context. It ultimately held in Paras-14 and 15 thus: 14. Keeping in view the question raised before the Supreme Court, the only reasonable inference can be that the Supreme Court has held that both the Central Government and the State Government can exercise the powers of an appropriate Government in relation to the cement industry under the I.D. Act, the former being itself the appropriate Government under Section 2(a)(i) and the latter being its delegatee. 15. For the reasons aforesaid, since the State Government cannot be held to be an appropriate Government in relation to cement industry as per the definition under Section 2(a)(i) of the I.D. Act, therefore, it cannot be an appropriate Government in relation to the said industry even under the Act. Accordingly, it is held that the State Government had no competence to issue a notification like the impugned one under Section 10(1) of the Act which has rightly been quashed by the learned single Judge. 20. In Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. case (supra), the Bombay High Court by referring Yovan, India Cement Employees Union case (supra) and Bagalkot Udyog Ltd., case (supra) and some other judgments has held that if the Central Government is the appropriate government for cement industry, the provisions of the Maharasatra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act have no application. 21. 21. Thus, from the above jurisprudential jurimetrics, it can be deduced that the delegation made by the Central Government in favour of the State Government under Section 39 of ID Act by notification No.S.O.826(E) dated 08.12.1977 is applicable in relation to ID Act only but not CL Act. Therefore, the Central Government alone is the appropriate Government for the petitioner and not the State Government and its officers. Hence the Assistant Labour Officer, Nandyal-II Circle representing State of A.P cannot launch prosecution. 22. On factual side, the documents filed by the petitioner would show that the petitioner company was registered under the provisions of the CL Act and its Rules and certificate of Registration No.09/2008 dated 08.08.2008 was issued to it by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and Registering Officer under CL (R & A) Act, 1970. So also, Form-II certificate was also issued by the said authority. Added to it, the petitioner maintained the Register of Contractors under Form-XII. Therefore, there were no violations as alleged. Thus, in my considered view continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of Court. 23. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in S.T.C.No.5 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal are quashed. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending if any, shall stand closed.