Jharkhand High Court
Dr. J.J. Irani And Three Ors. vs Sri Shaligram Pathak And Anr. on 15 May, 2007
Equivalent citations: [2007(4)JCR358(JHR)]
Author: D.G.R. Patnaik
Bench: D.G.R. Patnaik
ORDER D.G.R. Patnaik, J.
1. The petitioners have challenged the entire criminal proceedings against them in Complaint Case No. C2-956 including the order of cognizance dated 7.6.1996 whereby the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 23 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the CLA Act) against the petitioners and directed them to face trial.
2. The primary ground advanced in support of the prayer is that the order of cognizance is hopelessly barred by limitation and that the learned Court below has passed the order of cognizance without application of judicial mind.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State.
4. Before adverting to the grounds advanced by the petitioners, reference may be made to the facts of the case in brief:
A notification was issued by the State Government as contained in letter dated 20.12.1991 prohibiting engagement of contract labourers In respect of the work of permanent nature i.e. work of storage, cutting, carrying, loading and unloading of tube declared rejected by the company and also electrical maintenance of the Indian Tube Company at Jamshedpur. Such prohibition was promulgated under provision of Section 10(1) of the CLA Act in terms of which the Company has assured that it had stopped engaging contract labourers for any purpose at all.
On 16.12.1995, the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Inspector, Jamshedpur, (the opposite-party No. 1) visited the factory premises of the company and had learnt that the labourers were engaged in the factory for the purpose of loading of tubes by private workers of a contactor namely, D.P. Bandhanwala. Altogether 32 workers were found engaged in the aforesaid work of loading which was allegedly in contravention of the statutory provisions of the Act. A notification pointing out the contravention indulged by the company was issued by the opposite-party No. 2 to the management of the company. The accusations were however denied by the Management with respect to the provision of Section 10(1) of the. CLA Act. The opposite-party No. 2 filed his written complaint before the C.J.M., Jamshedpur on 5.6.1996. Cognizance of the offence under Section 23 of the Act was taken by the learned Court below by order dated 7.6.1996 which has been impugned in this case.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners elaborating the ground of limitation referred to certain dates and also to the provisions of the CLA Act. Learned Counsel explains that even according to the admitted case of the complainant as appearing in the complaint petition, the date of offence is the date of alleged inspection made on 16.12.1995 by the opposite-party No. 2 of the factory premises of the company. Section 23 of the Act prescribes maximum punishment of three months or fine up to rupees one thousand or fine. Referring to the other provisions, namely, Sections 24 and 25 of the Act, learned Counsel submits that in all these sections which are penal provisions, maximum punishment is three months. Referring to Section 27 of the Act, learned Counsel submits that the section provides limitation for prosecution and lays down the no Court will take cognizance of the offence punishable under the Act, unless the compliant thereof is made within three months from the date on which the alleged offence was committed. Learned Counsel explains further that apparently, the date of the alleged offence committed by the petitioner is the date of inspection of the factory premises made on 16.12.1995. The prosecution according to Section 27 of the Act should have been lodged within three months from the aforesaid date i.e. within the 15th March, 1996. On the other hand, in the instant case, the complaint was filed on 5.6.1996 and cognizance was taken two days later, and in this view of the matter, the entire cognizance is bad in law and cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel has raised other grounds as well finding fault with the complaint petition and the extent of liability of the petitioners by virtue of their office. Learned Counsel explains that the company, namely, The Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited (Tisco) has not been impleaded as an accused and the petitioner No. 1 being the Managing Director of the Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited and there being no averment in the complaint petition that the petitioners were in charge of the Management and general affairs of the Company, the prosecution of the petitioners is otherwise illegal and without any basis.
6. From perusal of the records and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find force in the ground advanced by the petitioners on the point of limitation. Admittedly, the inspection of the petitioners factory premises was made on 16.12.1995. It is not the case of the prosecution that the offence continued to be committed even subsequent to the date of the aforesaid inspection. There is no such averment in the compliant petition that similar inspections were also made on subsequent dates. It is therefore to be deemed that date of offence allegedly committed by the company is 16.12.1995. The allegation of violation of Section 10 of the CLA Act, which provides for three months punishment under Section 23 of the Act and it is in respect of this penal provision that cognizance of offence was taken by the learned Court below.
Section 27 of the Act lays down limitation of prosecution and envisage "no Court will take cognizance of the offence alleged in the complaint, unless it is made within three months from the date of alleged commission of the offence".
7. The complaint in the instant case was filed almost six months after the date of the commission of offence and thereafter the impugned order of cognizance was passed.
8. The impugned order of cognizance also indicates that it was recorded on a printed proforma and apparently the learned Court below has not applied Its judicial mind to the facts in regard to the delay in filing of the complaint, nor has adverted to the limitation in respect of the prosecution as laid down under Section 27 of the Act. The impugned order of cognizance is therefore violative of the provisions of law and is not sustainable.
9. Since this application can be disposed of on this score alone, there is no necessity to discuss any other ground advanced by the petitioners.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, I find merit in this application and accordingly this application is allowed. The impugned order of cognizance dated 7.6.1996 and the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners in the Complaint Case No. C2-956 pending against them in the Court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, is hereby quashed.