ORDER : (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.) Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. Writ Petition No.51895/2013 is filed to quash the proceeding initiated in C.C.No.879/2013 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall, Bangalore for alleged offences under Section 22 (b) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short 'Act of 1970'). 3. Writ Petition No.51891/2013 is filed to quash the proceeding initiated in C.C.No.880/2013 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall, Bangalore for alleged offences under Section 26 of the Act of 1970. 4. The petitioners have also sought Writ of Prohibition to restrain the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall, Bangalore from proceeding in C.C.Nos.879/2013 and 880/2013 marked at Annexure-H in both the petitions. 5. Petitioner No.1 is a Company engaged in a business of providing direct to home supply television services which falls under the telecommunication business and comes within the purview of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 . Petitioners No.2 to 4 are the employees of petitioner No.1 Company. 6. The petitioners claim that the Central Government has issued a Notification on 04.11.2004 declaring Petitioner No.1 Company’s business as Central Government Controlled business. It is further stated that on 13.09.2007, Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Mumbai has granted a certificate of registration under Section 7 of the Act of 1970 to engage contract labourers throughout India. Thus, the petitioners claim that the Company has complied with all the requirements under the Act of 1970 and no offence is committed. 7. Petitioners state that despite the Company complying with the requirement under the Act of 1970, the complaint is filed and cognizance is taken and proceedings are initiated before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.Nos.879/2013 and 880/2013 for alleged violation of the provisions of the Act of 1970. 8. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners entered into an agreement with the Central Government for carrying out the business in direct to home communication services and accordingly, an agreement is entered on 24.03.2006 between the petitioners and the Union of India. 9. 8. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners entered into an agreement with the Central Government for carrying out the business in direct to home communication services and accordingly, an agreement is entered on 24.03.2006 between the petitioners and the Union of India. 9. It is further submitted that the Central Government issued a Notification on 04.11.2004 in exercise of power conferred under Section 2 (a)(i) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act of 1947') specifying the industry in which the petitioners are carrying on the business as controlled by the Central Government and licence is granted on 24.03.2006 under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short 'Act of 1885'). 10. It is the further submission of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that in view of the Notification so issued under 2(a)(i) of the Act of 1947 read with Section 4 of the Act of 1885, the petitioners come under the jurisdiction of Central Government under the Act of 1970. Accordingly, the petitioners applied for registration under the Act of 1970 and registration is granted. Thus, there is complete compliance of requirement of Act of 1970. 11. It is further submitted that despite there being a complete compliance, the officials under the State Government under the Act of 1970 are insisting for registration and have alleged that there is non-compliance of provision of Act of 1970 and initiated criminal proceeding against the petitioners. 12. In the alternative, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners referring to Section 27 of the Act of 1970 would also submit that cognizance taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate is barred by limitation and these two aspects are completely ignored by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate before taking cognizance. 13. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent - State would contend that the petitioners are coming under the jurisdiction of the State Government under the Act of 1970 and it is very much evident from the certificate the petitioners have obtained under the provisions of The Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 (for short 'Act of 1961'). Thus, it is contended that the Metropolitan Magistrate is justified in taking cognizance and issuing process. 14. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 15. Thus, it is contended that the Metropolitan Magistrate is justified in taking cognizance and issuing process. 14. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 15. It is not in dispute that the petitioner No.1 is granted a licence to carry on the business in terms of the licence and agreement at Annexure-B. The Central Government has also issued Notification in terms of Annexure-C dated 04.11.2004. The said Notification is issued in exercise of power conferred under Section 2(a)(i) of the Act of 1947 read with Section 4 of the Act of 1885. The Notification clearly specifies that the Telegraph services are controlled by the Central Government. 16. The agreement at Annexure-B dated 24.03.2006 would reveal that the license is issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1885 and Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act 1933. Thus, it is evident from the above mentioned two documents that the business carried out by the petitioner No.1 is governed under the provisions of Act of 1885 and the said industry is controlled by the Central Government in view of the Notification under Section 2(a)(i) of the Act of 1947. This being the position, the jurisdiction to grant registration certificate vests with the Central Government officials under the Act of 1970 and the State Government officials do not have the jurisdiction and authority to grant the registration certificate, in so far as industry falling under the Notification dated 04.11.2004 at Annexure-C. And Registration is indeed granted under the Act, 1970 by the Central Government Officials. 17. Though the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioners themselves have admitted that they are governed by the provisions of the Act of 1961 in view of the certificate obtained by the petitioners and subsequent act of surrendering the said certificate, this Court is of the view that the certificate under the Act of 1961 is for a different purpose and does not make the petitioners amenable to the jurisdiction of State Government officials under the Act of 1970. The jurisdiction of the officials under the Act of 1970 is determined under the Notification issued by the Central Government under the Act of 1947, and the licence granted under the Act of 1885. 18. The jurisdiction of the officials under the Act of 1970 is determined under the Notification issued by the Central Government under the Act of 1947, and the licence granted under the Act of 1885. 18. This being the position, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have made out a case that State Government does not have jurisdiction to insist for registration under the Act of 1970, at the hands of the State Government officials. 19. In addition, the complaint is lodged on 18.05.2013 vide Annexure-H. It is noticed that the State Government officials conducted spot inspection on 26.11.2012 and according to them, there is violation of Section 7 of the Act of 1970. The complaint is filed on 18.05.2013. Section 27 of the Act of 1970 reads as under : "27. Limitation of prosecutions.— "No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act unless the complaint thereof is made within three months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an inspector. " 20. From the aforementioned provision, it is apparent that the Court can take cognizance of offence under the Act of 1970 if the complaint is made within three months from the date on which alleged commission of offence came to the knowledge of the inspector. The complaint at Annexure-H would reveal that inspection was conducted on 26.11.2012, however, the complaint is lodged on 18.05.2013 i.e., beyond three months from the date of the knowledge of commission of alleged offence. From that point also, the complaint is time barred and the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of offence. 21. Learned counsel for the respondent-State would submit that in terms of Annexure-F, inspection was conducted in the premises belonging to Tata Sky Repair Center and Tata Sky Repair Center does not enjoy the exemption under the Notification dated 04.11.2004 marked at Annexure-C. Thus, it is urged that Tata Sky Repair Center which has availed permission under the Act of 1961 has not complied with the requirement of the Act of 1970. 22. Learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioners would contend that petitioner No.1 is registered under the name of Tata Sky Private Limited, its services are governed by Central Government Controlled Industry in terms of the Notification dated 04.11.2004. 22. Learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioners would contend that petitioner No.1 is registered under the name of Tata Sky Private Limited, its services are governed by Central Government Controlled Industry in terms of the Notification dated 04.11.2004. Thus, he would contend that even if there is any violation by Tata Sky Repair Center, Tata Sky Private Limited which is a separate legal entity, and its Directors/Officers cannot be prosecuted. Thus, he would contend that on that score also, the complaint is not maintainable. 23. This Court has perused Annexure-F - notice. In terms of the said notice, it appears that on 26.11.2012, the inspection was made in the premises which is identified as Tata Sky Repair Center. It is not forthcoming as to whether Tata Sky Repair Center is owned by the proprietor or partnership firm or it is owned by petitioner No.1-Company. If it is owned by petitioner No.1, then petitioner No.1 is covered in terms of the Notification dated 04.11.2004. If it is owned by any other entity other than petitioner No.1, then the prosecution ought to have been lodged against the said entity or the proprietor or the partnership firm as the case may be. 24. For the reasons recorded above the prosecution against the petitioners for alleged offences under the Act of 1970 is impermissible. 25. Hence, the following : ORDER (a) Writ Petitions are allowed. (b) C.C.Nos.879/2013 and 880/2013 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall, Bangalore are quashed. (c) Liberty is reserved to respondent - State to initiate action against Tata Sky Repair Center if advised in law, in case Tata Sky Repair Center is not owned by Tata Sky Private Limited.