Madras High Court
K.R.Mohan vs The Labour Enforcement Officer ... on 28 January, 2020
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.O.P.No.10643 of 2013 etc batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :28.01.2020
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.10643, 11527 of 2013
13453, 13454. 13455, 13456 of 2012
9408, 9409, 9410, 9411,
9412, 9413, 9414 and 9415 of 2013
and M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2013
----
Crl.O.P.No.10643 of 2013:-
K.R.Mohan ..Petitioner
Vs
The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central)
Govt of India/Ministry of Labour
No.26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan
Chennai-600 006 ..Respondent
Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.10643 of 2013::
Crl.O.P., filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records
connected with S.T.C.No.726 of 2012 and quash the complaint and all
consequential proceedings on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet,
in S.T.C.No.726 of 2012.
For Petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.10643,
11527/2013,13454,
13455, 13456/2012,
9409/2013, 9410/2013,
9411, 9412, 9414/2013 :Mr.M.Karthick, Senior Counsel
for Mr.Krishna Prasad
for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/7
Crl.O.P.No.10643 of 2013 etc batch
For Petitioners
in Crl.O.P.13453/2012,
9408/2013, 9413 & 9415/2013 :Mr.M.Karthick, Senior Counsel
for Mr.John Zacjaroaj
for M/s.Fox Mandal and Associates
For Respondent : Mr.G.Rajagoplan, ASC
Asst by Mr.B.Rabu Manohar,
SCGPC, Government of India.
COMMON ORDER
The respondent/Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) filed complaints under Section 23 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 for the breach of Section 7 against the petitioners herein before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the complaint in S.T.C.Nos.726, 727, 370, 376, 377, 399, 371, 378, 724, 725, 728, 730, 729 and 731 of 2012 respectively and issued summons to the petitioners. The petitioners have been shown as accused in the complaints. After receipt of the complaints, the petitioners, who are the the accused in various STCs, have filed the present Criminal Original Petitions before this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the Additional General Manager of M/s.Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., which is a Limited Company and there are various units http://www.judis.nic.in 2/7 Crl.O.P.No.10643 of 2013 etc batch and all the units are controlled by the above said company and they have got the licence in accordance with Chapter IV of the Act and within their jurisdiction, they engaged labourers and not violated the Act.
3. The respondent is the Enforcement Officer, who is the Central Government Officer under Ministry of Labour. The petitioners are the Additional General Manager of M/s.Bharat Heavy Electricals and the employer is Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., and the company was not arrayed as party in any of the complaint and without prosecuting the company, the officers/Additional General Managers cannot be prosecuted. In this case, the company viz., BHEL has not been arrayed as party. Therefore, all the complaints have to be quashed. He also placed reliance on the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in (i) AIR 2012 SC 2795 [Aneeta Hada and Others Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd., and Others] (ii) C.P.Jain and others Vs. Inspector, Building and another [Criminal Appeal Nos.1285 and 1286 of 2007 @ SLP (Crl).Nos.1517 and 1560 of 2007] and the decision of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court reported in MANU/TN/5977/2018 [HCL Technologies Ltd., Vs. State of Tamil Nadu] and stated that when the company violated the statutory provisions of the Act, the Ministry of Labour can prosecute the company and without prosecuting the company, the officers, directors of the company alone cannot be prosecuted. http://www.judis.nic.in 3/7 Crl.O.P.No.10643 of 2013 etc batch
4. The learned Additional Solicitor General would submit that BHEL is a Central Government Undertaking having various units and as per the Factories Act, they engaged contract labourers for every unit and they obtained licence for limited labourers, but, violated the licence as they engaged more labourers and therefore, they violated Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, they have to be prosecuted under Section 23 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and also he would submit that though the company has not been arrayed as party, the Manager, Additional General Manager or the Directors are responsible for the violation of the statutory provisions and they are held responsible for the breach of licence. Therefore, they have to be prosecuted even without adding the company and therefore, the petitioners can be prosecuted.
5. Heard and perused the records.
6. Admittedly, the petitioners are the officers of the company viz., Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited. Admittedly, they have engaged the contract labourers. According to the petitioners, they have not violated any provisions of the licence obtained. On the other hand, according to the respondent, during inspection, they found some irregularities and the petitioners have violated the conditions imposed in the licence and also engaged contract labourers beyond the limit which are not covered under the licence, therefore, the petitioners are held liable. It is submitted that http://www.judis.nic.in 4/7 Crl.O.P.No.10643 of 2013 etc batch the respondent/Labour Enforcement Officer, issued notice and the petitioners properly responded. But, the reply given by them was not satisfactory to the respondent and therefore, the Labour Enforcement Officer has filed the complaints.
7. Admittedly, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., is a company coming under the Central Government. The respondent himself is the Labour Enforcement Officer, Central Government of India, Ministry of Labour. There is no dispute that BHEL is a Central Government Undertaking.
8. It is settled proposition of law that if there is any violation of the statutory conditions of law, company can be prosecuted. If the complainant wants to prosecute against the petitioners, they should also prosecute the Manager/General Manager or their directors who are looking after day to day affairs of the company. But it is settled proposition of law, without prosecuting the company, the officers or directors, Additional General Managers, alone cannot be prosecuted and in this regard, Madurai Bench of this court while dealing with the issue in respect of Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, wherein, the company has not been prosecuted, quashed the complaint by order dated 12.10.2018. Though the citation referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners reported in AIR 2012 SCC 2795 http://www.judis.nic.in 5/7 Crl.O.P.No.10643 of 2013 etc batch (Aneeta Hada and Others Vs. Godfathr Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd., and others) decided by Honourable Supreme Court, is the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as held by Supreme Court, Section 141 of the NI Act is pari materia with Section 25 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Since the respondent has not impleaded the BHEL as an accused, following the above decisions, this court has no hesitation to hold that without impleading the company as accused, the respondent cannot prosecute against the petitioners alone. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court and also Madurai Bench of this court cited supra, this court is inclined to quash the complaint, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. In the result, all the Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. The proceedings in STC.Nos.726, 727, 370, 376, 377, 399, 371, 378, 724, 725, 728, 730, 729 and 731 of 2012 pending against the petitioners, on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet, are quashed.
28.01.2020 Index:Yes/No Speaking / Non Speaking nvsri http://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 Crl.O.P.No.10643 of 2013 etc batch P.VELMURUGAN,J.
nvsri To
1.The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Govt of India/Ministry of Labour No.26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan Chennai-600 006
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet
3.The Section Officer, Crl.O.P.Nos.10643 of 2013 etc batch 28.01.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7