- (1.) These two criminal petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the prosecution against the petitioners in S.T.C. Nos. 141 of 1993 and 142 of 1993 on the file of the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
(2.) Sri. A. Gopal Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, who accused 1 and 2 in the two cases, contends that the prosecution of the present petitioners (A-1 and A-2) is misconceived and it is not maintainable in view of the specific provision of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The Labour Enforcement Officer inspected the staff quarters of the Canara Bank and initiated action on the basis of his inspection conducted on 19-9-1992. He found that security guards were employed in the staff quarters through a contractor and thus it violates Notification No. 779 (2), dated 9-12-1976 and hence it amounts to violation of Section 10(1) of the Act. In S.T.C. 142 of 1993 the allegation is to the effect that 31 contract labourers were engaged in construction of quarters at Barkatpura without obtaining registration certificate by the principal employer. Some other violations are also mentioned in the show-cause notice.
(3.) The crucial question that will have to be considered in these two matters is whether the staff quarters for which watchmen were employed would come within the definition of an 'establishment' and whether the Notification No. 779 (E), dated 9-12-1976 goes beyond the ambit and scope of the definition given to the establishment under S. 2(e) of the Act. The other question that will have to be considered is whether the Notification No. 779 (E), dated 9-12-1976 would bring within its ambit the activity of construction of quarters for the bank employees.;