State Bank of India vs State

K.S. Gupta, J.—In this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner-accused seeks quashment of the complaint dated 25th September 1997 filed by the respondent.

Complaint (Annexure P-2) was filed by the State through Labour Enforcement Officer (C) alleging that branch at 11, Sansad Marg of the petitioner bank was inspected by complainant-respondent on 9th July 1997 and work of sweeping and cleaning of premises there was found being done through Ajay Kumar, Contractor by employing 6 contract labourers. As per notification No. 779(E) dated 9th December 1976 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi u/s 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short the ''Act'') work of sweeping and cleaning is prohibited category of employment and punishable u/s 23 of the Act. The petitioner is the principal employer as defined u/s 2(1)(g) of the Act for the said work. It was prayed that petitioner be summoned and tried for the offence committed.

Relying on the decision in Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, the contention advanced by Sh. Jagat Arora for petitioner was that alleged violation of notification No. 779(E) dated 9th December 1976 by petitioner bank, would not attract penalty u/s 25 of the Act. Also relying on the decision in Steel Authority of India Ltd and Ors. v. National Union Water Front Workers and Ors. 2001 II LLJ 239, further contention advanced was that said notification has since been quashed by the Supreme Court and it cannot, thus, form the basis for prosecuting the petitioner.

In M/s. Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd''s case (supra), the violation alleged by petitioner was of Notification dated 1st February 1975 which prohibited employment of contract labour in the works of raising-cum-selling of coal; coal loading and unloading; overburden removal and earth cutting, soft coke manufacturing and driving of stone drifts and miscellaneous stone cutting underground, issued u/s 10(1) of the Act. One of the points raised on behalf of petitioner was that violation of said notification cannot attract penal provision of the Act unless the conduct attributed to the petitioners fell strictly under the penal provisions of the Act or the rules framed there under. While dealing with that point it was held that without violation of the provisions of the Act or rules framed there under, the prosecution cannot fasten criminal liability against the petitioner on the strength of said notification issued under executive power taking aid of said Section 10(1). Aforesaid notification No.779(E) dated 9th December 1976 which prohibits employment of contract labour for sweeping and cleaning etc, is similar to above notification dated 1st February 1975.

In Steel Authority of India Ltd''s case (supra), aforesaid notification No. 779(E) dated 9th December 1976 had been quashed by the court prospectively ie.e from the date of judgment subject to clarification that on the basis of that judgment no order passed or any action taken under the said notification on or before the date of judgment, shall be called in question in any tribunal or court including the High Court if it has otherwise attained finality and/or it has been implemented. Obviously, present prosecution does not fall in any of these two categories. Thus, complaint in question deserves to be quashed on both the said grounds being abuse of process of court u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

For the foregoing discussion, petition is allowed and complaint in question pending against the petitioner bank before a Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House courts, is hereby quashed.