M/s. Transocean Offshore International Ventures Ltd. vs The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Ministry of Labour and Employment and Another

N.A. Britto, J.—Heard. The issue involved in this petition is one of limitation and is in relation to Section 27 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (Act, for short).

Section 27 of the Act reads as follows:

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.

Provided that where the offence consists of disobeying a written order made by an inspector, complaint thereof may be made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed.

We could proceed to decide this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code, for short) based on the allegations in the complaint. There is no dispute that the establishment of the petitioner was inspected on 5/03/2008 by the respondent/Labour Enforcement Inspector (Central), who found certain violations of Rule 81(3), 18(4) and 74 of Rules of 1971 and on the same day forwarded a report of inspection requesting the petitioner to rectify the irregularities mentioned in the inspection report and also to show cause why action under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act be not taken against the petitioner.

The petitioner reported compliance by letter dated 6/05/2008. The complainant/Labour Inspector held another inspection for verification on 23/06/2008 and according to the complainant the breach of the Rules noticed earlier were not complied with and therefore the complaint was filed on 19/09/2008 u/s 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

Process was issued against the accused by order dated 23/09/2009. An application for dismissal of complaint, was dismissed on 18/11/2009.

Shri Dessai, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/accused has made two fold submissions. First, that the complaint was barred by limitation prescribed by Section 27 of the Act. Second, process was issued without application of mind. Learned Counsel submits that the inspection was carried out on 5/03/2008 and the period of three months envisaged by Section 27 had to be computed from the date of inspection and, as such, the complaint which was filed on 19/09/2008 after more than six months, thirteen days, was clearly time bared. Secondly, Shri Dessai, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the order dated 23/09/2009 issuing process against the accused has proceeded without application of mind contrary to Section 204 of the Code.

Learned Senior Counsel in support of his first submission has placed reliance on two judgments. The first is in the case of Dr. J.J. Irani and Others Vs. Sri Shaligram Pathak and Another, wherein the inspection was carried out on 16/12/1995. It was observed by the learned Single Judge that it was not the case of the prosecution that the offence continued to be committed even subsequent to the date of the aforesaid inspection in as much as there was no such averment in the complaint. That similar inspections were also made on subsequent dates and, therefore, it was held that the offence was allegedly committed on 16/12/1995 and a complaint which was filed almost 6 months after the date of the commission of the offence was clearly time bared. The second is the case of J.U. Prabhu Vs. State of Karnataka, , wherein it is held that mere sending of a show cause notice by post cannot be considered as an order having been passed and having been disobeyed to bring the complaint within limitation prescribed.

In S. Ramachandra Reddy Vs. P.N. Ravindra Reddy and Another, , it was held that the period of limitation prescribed u/s 140 of the A.P.G.P. Act, 1964 is not repugnant to Section 268(2)(a) of the Code.

Admittedly, the complaint in the case at hand was filed by none other than the Labour Enforcement Inspector and, therefore, in terms of Section 26, no previous sanction was required to be obtained to file the complaint. Shri Amonkar, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the limitation period of three months has got to be computed from the date of verification i.e. 23/06/2008, but in my view, such a submission cannot be accepted as the language of Section 27 is very clear that the complaint should be filed within three months from the date of which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the inspector and in this case it was on 5/03/2008. If the time is to be computed from the date the offence/ s came to the knowledge of the Inspector, it certainly could not be extended by a re-inspection for verification. Therefore, in terms of Section 27 of the Act, the inspection having taken place on 5/03/2008, the complainant ought to have filed the complaint within three months therefrom. The complainant certainly could not have got extension of time by holding another inspection as the time had already started running out from 5/03/2008. The complaint which has been filed on 19/09/2008 is beyond limitation prescribed by Section 27 of the said Act and, therefore, it was clearly time bared and, as such, the learned JMFC could not have taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner/accused.

It is not necessary to consider the second submission, in view of the finding on the first. As a result, this petition deserves to succeed. The impugned orders dated 23/09/2008 and 18/11/2009 of the learned Magistrate are hereby set aside, with no order as to costs. Expedite authenticated copy.