AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Kantha Rao, J.—This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in STC No. 280 of 2010 on the fife to the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the second respondent/State.
The first respondent-Labour Enforcement Officer, Central filed the complaint against the petitioner/accused alleging the following contraventions under the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1770:
(1) Breach of Rule 75: That the accused has failed to maintain the register of persons employed at the workplace.
(2) Breach of Rule 76(1): That the accused has failed to issue employment cards to the contract labours though they were putting more than three days attendance.
It is alleged in the complaint that the firs it respondent/complainant has jurisdiction over the establishment of the petitioner and inspected the contract work on 11.11.2009 and noticed the aforesaid irregularities. He sent notice dated 11.11.2009 by RPAD to the petitioner and asked to rectify the irregularities mentioned in the inspection report immediately and report compliance within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice. A reply was sent on behalf of the Bharati Airtel Services Limited, in respect of which the irregularities were allegedly noticed stating therein as follows:
We wish to inform that we are maintaining the Register of Employee in Form 13 under Contract Labour Act, The copy of the Register of employees enclosed herewith for your reference. We further wish to inform you that we could not be produce the register during the time of your inspection as it was not available.
We are issuing Employment Cards to all our employees deployed at Bharati Airtel Office at the time of joining of the employee only. The copy of the employment cards are enclosed herewith for your reference.
The complainant alleged in the complaint that the reply is not satisfactory and therefore, a complaint is filed against the accused. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in fact no violations have been committed by the accused and reiterating the same a prompt reply was sent and therefore, the complaint against the petitioner is not maintainable. The learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to Section 25 of the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1970. According to which, without a person committing an offence under this Act is a company, the company as well as every person in charge of, and responsible to, company for the conduct of its business at the time of the commission of the offences shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
According to the said provision, the company as well as the person, who is responsible to the conduct of the business of the company are liable to be prosecuted. In the instant case, the petitioner is G. Kalyan Sudheer and he is said to be an employee of the company, it is not mentioned in the complaint that either he is in-charge or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. The company itself is not made an accused and therefore, filing complaint against the employee of the company without mentioning even his designation is bad in law. Further, after receiving the reply from the contract work of Telecom and Allied Services to Bharati Airtel Limited, Begumpet, Hyderrabad, no specific allegation is mentioned against the company in the complaint except stating that the explanation is not satisfactory. There is no specific allegation saying that the company violated Rules 75 and 76(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules. In view of what all stated hereinabove. I am of the considered view that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the proceedings in STC No. 280 of 2010 against the petitioner are hereby quashed and the criminal petition is allowed.