ORDER : These two petitions being identical in nature, involving identical questions of facts and law, are being decided by this common order. 2. Petitioner, an accused in cases Nos. 21/3 of 2018 and 61/3 of 2018, both titled as State of HP vs. Nikhil Nayak filed by Labour Inspector under Sections 28(3), 29(1), 35(2)(n) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) and Rules 75, 78(2), (a), (e), (d), 80(4) and 82(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1978 (in short “the Rules”) pending adjudication in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nalagarh, District Solan, has approached this Court for quashing the complaints and consequential trials arising thereto, mainly on the ground that he had never been a Contractor or Sub Contractor under the Act for supplying contract labour for any work of establishment namely M/s Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (in short ‘MIFPL’), (former Cadbury India Limited), at any point of time and, therefore, for any lapse in supplying the labour or maintaining the record related thereto under the Act or Rules framed thereunder, petitioner is not liable to be prosecuted and punished, rather for such default Contractor (Service Provider) namely Mahindra Logistics Ltd (in short MLL), a Registered Company under the Companies Act for execution of service agreement dated 24th March, 2017 executed between MIFPL and MLL, is answerable for such default, whereas, petitioner had been an employee of MLL w.e.f. 21.10.2009 to 31.8.2018 and his last designation was Chief Financial Officer and he had signed the agreement dated 24th March, 2017 as an employee of MLL which never permits the Labour Inspector or MIFPL to substitute the petitioner in place of Contractor (Service Provider) MLL for prosecuting him instead of MLL for liability under the Act and Rules framed thereunder. 3. Petitioner has placed on record copies of Registration Certificate of Incorporation of MLL issued by Assistant Registrar of Companies Maharashtra; Relieving Letter indicating relieving of petitioner from MLL on 31.8.2018; a Certificate certifying the employment of petitioner with MLL w.e.f. 21.10.2009 to 31.8.2018 with last designation as Chief Financial Officer; and Services Agreement between MIFPL and MLL to substantiate his version. Copy of complaint(s) dated 31.10.2017, communication dated 11.10.2017 issued by Labour Inspector to petitioner on the address of MLL and impugned order dated 15.3.2019 have also been placed on record along with other orders. 4. Copy of complaint(s) dated 31.10.2017, communication dated 11.10.2017 issued by Labour Inspector to petitioner on the address of MLL and impugned order dated 15.3.2019 have also been placed on record along with other orders. 4. In response to petition, stand of respondent is that on inspection of two units of MIFPL on 9.10.2017, lapses were found with respect to labour supplied by contractor and the establishment i.e. MIFPL had informed the name of petitioner as contractor and, therefore, notice was issued to petitioner to produce the relevant record for which the contractor was responsible to maintain under the Act and Rules framed thereunder, but petitioner had failed to comply with the provisions of Act and Rules and, therefore, complaint has rightly been filed against the petitioner leading to initiation of criminal proceedings against him before the concerned Magistrate. 5. Some documents i.e. requests made by MIFPL for amending their Registration Certificate with respect to details of contractor have been placed on record wherein petitioner Nikhil Nayak has been reflected as contractor for providing contract labour for the purpose of loading/unloading. During hearing complete record was produced and photocopies of similar requests of MIFPL indicating the petitioner Nikhil Nayak as contractor w.e.f. 1.4.2017 to 31.3.2020 have been placed on record. 6. In response to query by Court, it was informed that list of contractors supplied by MIFPL was never verified by Labour Inspector and information supplied in Annexure-1 with the requests made by MIFPL for amendment of Certificate of Registration under Rule 18(i) of Rules along with Form-I was considered to be true and correct and therefore, petitioner Nikhil Nayak was considered as contractor. 7. There is no rebuttal to Services Agreement, executed between MIFPL and MLL, placed on record. The only reason for prosecuting the petitioner is that his name was found mentioned as contractor in information supplied by MIFPL with Form-1 under Rule 18(i) of the Rules. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner has signed the Services Agreement as a Chief Financial Officer, but this agreement has also been signed by Chief Executive Officer of MLL. Both of them have signed it for MLL. 8. Section 2(1) (c), (e), and (g) of the Act defines “Contractors” “Establishment” and “principle employer”, which reads as under:- “2……… 1(a)………. (b)……….. Both of them have signed it for MLL. 8. Section 2(1) (c), (e), and (g) of the Act defines “Contractors” “Establishment” and “principle employer”, which reads as under:- “2……… 1(a)………. (b)……….. (c) “contractor” in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor; (d)…… (e) “establishment means- (i) any office or department of the Government or a local authority, or (ii) any place where any industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation is carried on; (f)…… (g) “principal employer” means- (i) in relation to any office or department of the Government or a local authority, the head of that office or department or such other officer as the Government or the local authority, as the case may be, may specify in this behalf, (ii) in a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory and where a person has been named as the manager of the factory under the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), the person so named, (iii) in a mine, the owner or agent of the mine and where a person has been named as the manager of the mine, the person so named, (iv) in any other establishment, any person responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment…...” 9. From the aforesaid definitions, in the given facts placed before me, petitioner cannot be termed as “contractor”, rather, it is MLL which is contractor under the Act and MIFPL is an “establishment” and Manager thereof is “principle employer” for the purpose of Act. 10. Section 7 of the Act mandates registration of certain establishments to which the Act applies. Rule 17(1) of the Rules provides that establishment or its principle employer has to submit an application in Form-I to Registering Officer of the area in which the establishment, sought to be registered, is located. 10. Section 7 of the Act mandates registration of certain establishments to which the Act applies. Rule 17(1) of the Rules provides that establishment or its principle employer has to submit an application in Form-I to Registering Officer of the area in which the establishment, sought to be registered, is located. In Form-I in Column No.6 establishment or its principle employer has to disclose the particulars of contractors and contract labour by giving following information:- (a) names and addresses of contractors; (b) nature of work in which contract labour is employed or is to be employed; (c) maximum number of contract labour to be employed on any day through each contractor; (d) estimated date of termination of employment of contract labour under each contractor. 11. In view of above, it was duty of establishment i.e. MIFPL to disclose the particulars of contractors and contract labour. Services Agreement was executed between MIFPL and MLL but in Form-I, placed on record, name of contractor has been reflected as Nikhil Nayak, which is factually incorrect. It was also duty of concerned authority to verify the facts by making inquiry from the person/Institution whose name has been reflected as contractor in Form-I submitted by or on behalf of establishment, or by asking the establishment to supply the documents to substantiate the information submitted in Form-I under Rule 17(1). The Certificate of Registration is granted under Rule 18(1) of Rules on the basis of information supplied under Rule 17(1). The concerned Labour Officer and Labour Inspector have failed to perform their duty with due diligence in present case. 12. Petitioner was employed as Chief Financial Officer and he stood relieved on 31.8.2018 whereas he has been reflected as contractor till 31.3.2020 and instead of giving his permanent address, in the information supplied by establishment MIFPL, his address has been given as that of M/s MLL Mahindra Towers, P.K. Kurne Chowk, Worli Mumbai-400018 despite the fact that petitioner was neither Chief Executive Officer nor Managing Director or Director or Officer liable for vicarious liability on behalf of MLL. In any case, it is not a case where MLL has been reflected as contractor and petitioner has been sued as a responsible/authorized officer of MLL but it is a case where by establishment MLL has not been reflected as contractor but petitioner has been shown as contractor who has been prosecuted by Labour Inspector as a contractor but not as an officer of MLL, the contractor (Service Provider). In communication dated 11.10.2017, issued by Labour Inspector, petitioner has been shown as contractor, may be on the basis of wrong information supplied by establishment, which was never verified by Labour Inspector or Labour Officer. 13. A person shown as contractor by establishment, without his knowledge and consent, does not acquire the status of contractor in absence of any document to substantiate his status as contractor. There is nothing on record to establish that petitioner was ever engaged as contractor under the Act for supplying the contract labour to establishment MIFPL. The Labour Inspector has considered the petitioner as a contractor without any material on record to establish the same. Therefore, petitioner cannot be said to be a contractor within the meaning of Section 2(1) (c) of Act at any stretch of imagination. 14. For lapse of any kind or violation in compliance of provisions of Act and Rules framed thereunder, Contractor was liable to be prosecuted and punished, but for laxity on the part of concerned Officer, no action has been taken against the contractor but against a person who was not liable to be prosecuted in his individual capacity. 15. Perusal of Sections 28(3), 29(1), 35(2)(n) of the Act and Rules 75, 78(2), (a), (e), (d), 80(4) and 82(1) of the Rules reveals that in all these provisions, the contractor had to perform/comply with certain conditions with respect to maintaining registers and records with particulars of contract labour employed, nature of work performed by contract labour, rates of wages paid to contract labour and other particulars; to submit the returns in Forms in which, to the authorities to which, such returns are to be submitted as prescribed under the Rules and Forms given therein and also to produce the documents and things and peculiar information required by an Inspector during inspection or after inspection and the contractor is legally bound to do so within the meaning of Sections 175 and 176 of Indian Penal Code. 16. 16. Rule 75 provides that every Contractor shall maintain, in respect of each registered Establishment where he employs the contract labour, a Register in Form-XIII. Rule 78(1) (a), (c) and (d) provides that every Contractor shall maintain a Muster Roll and a Register of Wages in Form XVI and XVII respectively with signatures or thumb impression of every worker on the Register of Wages or Wages-cum-Muster Roll Register authenticated by initials of contractor or his representative and duly certified by authorized representative of Principle Employer (Establishment) as required under Rule 73 and also to maintain Registers of deduction for damages or loss, Register of fines and Register of advances in Forms XX, XXI and XXII. Rule 82(1) casts duty on every Contractor to send half yearly return on Form XXIV to Licensing Officer within 30 days from the close of half year. In all these Rules, for which petitioner has been charged, Contractor had to perform certain acts and to ensure compliance as provided under these Rules. 17. There is nothing on record that petitioner, as a contractor, has ever filed any return either in individual capacity or on behalf of MLL. Reply of respondents and documents supplied by respondents are completely silent in this regard. 18. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that there is no material, much less sufficient material, to prosecute petitioner Nikhil Nayak as a contractor under the Act and Rules framed thereunder in his individual capacity and, therefore, order dated 31.10.2017 along with consequential trial in case Nos. 21 of 2003 and 61 of 2007 of 2018 both titled as State of HP vs. Nikhil Nayak in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, are quashed. 19. Before parting with case, it would be apt to record here that MIFPL has failed to supply the correct particulars of contractor and concerned Labour Inspector as well as Labour Officer have also failed to perform their duty with due diligence and care resulting into no action against real culprit and prosecution of a wrong person. Therefore, appropriate action is required to be taken against MIFPL and concerned Officers are required to be called for explanation in accordance with law and Rules as applicable. Therefore, appropriate action is required to be taken against MIFPL and concerned Officers are required to be called for explanation in accordance with law and Rules as applicable. Therefore, Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla is directed to ensure appropriate action in the light of observations made herein-above within one month and file compliance affidavit on or before 30th May, 2022 in the Registry of this Court. Petitions are disposed of in aforesaid terms.