Bangalore District Court
State By Senior Labour Inspector vs Sri.Gopinath Reddy P on 28 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC
COURT - VI, BENGALURU CITY.
C.C. No.814/2011
Dated: This the 28th day of January, 2016
Present : Smt.Lavanya H.N., B.Sc.,LL.B
P.O. of MMTC-VI, Bengaluru.
Complainant : State by Senior Labour Inspector,
23rd Circle, Karmika Bhavana,
Bangalore-29.
V/s
Accused : Sri.Gopinath Reddy P.
B.B.M.P.Ward No.50,
06, Behind Sandya Theatre,
Old Madiwala, Bengaluru-68.
JUDGMENT
Senior Labour Inspector, 23rd Circle, Bengaluru has presented this complaint U/s 200 of Cr.P.C. r/w Sec.26 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (herein after it is referred as the Act) alleging that the accused has committed the offences punishable U/s 22 (2) and 24 of the Act.
The brief facts of complaint are as under:
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused is a contractor of Ward No.50, who has been employed by the 2 CC.No.814/2011 Commissioner of BBMP, Bengaluru as such he is a Contractor as defined under section Sec.2(1)(c) of the Act. The accused has employed 70 Contract laborer for cleaning and maintaining of roads as assigned by the Commissioner of BBMP.
3. It is further case of the prosecution that on 02.08.2011 at about 10.30 a.m. the complainant has visited Ward No.50 and made inspection under Contract Labour Act and other Labour Acts wherein he has noticed that the accused has violated the rules and regulations of Labour Laws. It is further case of the complainant that during his inspection he has noticed the following violations under the Act and the Contract Labour(Regulation and Abolition) Rules 1971 (hereinafter it is referred as the Rules) that: the accused has failed to exhibit the notice board showing the rates of wages, hours of work, wage period, dates of payment of wages, names and addresses of the Inspectors having jurisdiction, and other particulars as such the accused has violated section 29 of the Act and Rule 81(1) of the Rules); The contractor/accused has failed to intimate to the Senior Labour Inspector with regard to commencement of contract work in form vi(a) as such the accused has violated section 29 of the Act and Rule 25(2)(viii) of the Rules. The accused has failed to provide rest room to the contract laborers even after expiry of 30 days from the date of commencement of works as such the accused has violated section 17 of the Act and Rule 41(1) of the Rules. The accused has failed to provide and 3 CC.No.814/2011 maintain the First-Aid boxes as such the accused has violated section 29 of the Act and Rule 58 of the Rules. The accused has not informed to the Principal Employer about the disbursement of wages, place and time in writing as such the accused has violated section 29 of the Act and Rule 71 of the Rules. The accused has failed to issue employment cards to the labourers as per form No.xiv and has failed to produce during course of inspection as such the accused has violated section 29(1) of the Act and Rule 76 of the Rules. The accused has failed to issue Service certificate to the labourers as per form No.xv and has not produced during course of inspection as such the accused has violated section 29(1) of the Act and Rule 77 of the Rules. The accused has failed to maintain attendance book as prescribed in form No.xvi and form No.T and has not produced during course of inspection as such the accused has violated section 29(1) of the Act and Rule 78(1) of the Rules. The accused has failed to maintain register of wages as prescribed in form No.xvii and has not produced during course of inspection as such the accused has violated section 29(1) of the Act and Rule 78(1) of the Rules. The accused has failed to maintain register of advances as prescribed in form No.xxii and form No.T and has failed to produce during the course of inspection as such the accused has violated section 29(1) of the Act and Rule 78(1) of the Rules. The accused has failed to maintain combined register as prescribed in form No.T and has failed to produce during course of inspection as such the accused has violated section 29(1) of the Act and Rule 78(1) of the Rules.4 CC.No.814/2011
The accused has failed to maintain register of over time as prescribed in form No.xxiii and form No.T and has failed to produce during course of inspection as such the accused has violated section 29(1) of the Act and Rule 78(1) of the Rules. The accused has failed to issue wage slips as prescribed in form No.xix and has failed to produce during inspection as such the accused has violated section 29(1) of the Act and Rule 78(1)(b) of the Rules. The accused has failed to submit half yearly return as prescribed in form No.xxiv as such the accused has violated section 29(1) of the Act and Rule 82(1) of the Rules.
4. It is further case of the Complainant that at the time of the inspection he has noticed the aforesaid violations and the same has been recorded spot itself and thereafter, he has recorded the statement of the labourers who present therein. One Murali who is supervisor under the accused refused to sign the report. As such, he has issued the show-cause notice calling upon the accused to produce the documents before him within seven days from the date of receipt of notice and submit compliance report. Inspite of it the accused has not produced the documents maintained by him and has failed to comply with the direction/observation made by the Complainant. Hence, the present complaint.
5. After presenting the Complaint, cognizance was taken of the offence punishable U/s 22(2) and 24 of the Act. As 5 CC.No.814/2011 Complainant is a Government Servant, recording of the sworn statement has been dispensed with. As prima-facie case has been made out against the accused, the present complaint came to be registered as Criminal Case and thereafter, process has been issued to the accused.
6. In pursuance of the process the accused caused his appearance through Advocate and he has got enlarged on bail. Copies of the Complaint and other documents have been supplied to the accused as required U/s 207 of Cr.P.C.
7. Substance of accusation has been read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for Prosecution evidence.
8. In order to establish its case Complainant has got himself examined as PW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 10 and closed its side.
9. After completion of evidence on behalf of complainant, all the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused has been read over and explained to him who has denied the same. Accordingly, the Statement of the accused has been recorded U/s 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. In defense the accused has not adduced either oral or documentary evidence. But, Ex.D1 and 2 have been marked through PW-1 during his cross-examination.
6 CC.No.814/201110. I have heard the arguments and perused the materials available on record. The following points that would arise for consideration:
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused being an appointed contractor of Ward No.50 of BBMP, Bangalore has committed the offences punishable U/s 22 (2) and 24 of the Act?
2. What order?
11. The findings to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative;
Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
REASONS POINT No.1:
12. The Complainant, PW-1 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 02.08.2011 at about 10.30 a.m. he has visited Ward No.50 and made inspection and recorded statement of contract laborers as per Ex.P3 to 5 and also directed one Murali who is working as supervisor under the accused to produce the documents and registers. But, he has failed to produce the registers and documents. In this regard he has prepared Inspection Report at Ex.P.2. But, the said Murali has refused to on sing the Inspection Report at Ex.P.2. But, the carbon copy of the said Ex.P.2 has been provided to the said Murali calling upon him to produce the registers and documents and also calling 7 CC.No.814/2011 upon him to rectify the violations noticed by him and submit compliance report within seven days. But, neither said Murali nor accused has produced the registers and has failed to submit the compliance report within 7 days. As such, on 30.08.2011 he has issued the show-cause notice as per Ex.P.6 through speed post calling upon the accused to produce the documents before him within the seven days from the date of receipt of notice and submit compliance report. Inspite of it the accused has not produced the documents maintained by him and has failed to comply with the direction/observation made by the Complainant. Hence, he has filed complaint at Ex.P.1.
13. PW-1 has been subjected to cross-examination by the defense at length. It is specific defense of the accused that false case has been lodged against the accused though the complainant has not visited the spot as alleged by him. It is further defense of the accused that he has maintained the combined muster roll cum-register of wages as per the law which has been produced before the Higher Officer of the Complainant and the same has been brought to the notice of the Complainant also. Inspite of it the Complainant has filed the false case against the accused. It is further contended that no show-cause notice has been served to the accused.
14. It is not in dispute that accused is the appointed Contractor of Ward No.50 of BBMP. According to the complainant 8 CC.No.814/2011 the accused has not maintained the registers which are required to be maintained by him.
15. The Complainant in his evidence has deposed that he has recorded the statement of the laborers who are working under the accused. In this case none of the laborers have been examined by the Complainant to support his version that he has visited Ward No.50 and has recorded the Statements of Laborers who are working under the accused and laborers have been paid less amount and the accused has violated the provisions of Labour Act and the Rules. Further, there is no hurdle for the Complainant to adduce the evidence of the laborers who are working under the accused, who have alleged to be given statement as per Ex.P-3 to
5. Under these circumstances, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has violated the provisions of Contract Labour Act and Rules. Hence, point No.1 is answered in the negative.
POINT No.2:
16. In view of finding on point No.1, this Court proceeds to pass the following :9 CC.No.814/2011
ORDER Acting U/s 255 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, accused is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s 22 (2) and 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
Bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by him, revised corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of January, 2016) (Smt.Lavanya H.N.) P.O. OF MMTC-VI, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW-1 : Yashodhara C.N. Documents Exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P-1 : Complaint, Ex.P-2 : Notice, Ex.P-3 to 5 : Statement of labourers, Ex.P-6 : Show Cause Notice, Ex.P-7 : Postal Receipt. Witness examined for the defense : Nil. Documents exhibited for the defense :
Ex.D-1 and 2 : Combined muster role cum wages register (Which are marked in CC No.812/2011) P.O. of MMTC-VI, Bengaluru City.10 CC.No.814/2011