Arun Kumar Datta, J. - (1.) By this Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code), the petitioners-accused (hereinafter referred to as accused) have prayed the Court for quashing of the relevant proceedings, being Case No. C-395/87/T- 193/90, pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, 24-Parganas (North), on the grounds made out therein.
(2.) The accused have been prosecuted before the Court below for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 23, 24 read with Section 26 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 hereinafter referred to as Act)/The West Bengal Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Rules) on the allegations made in the Petition of Complaint. It is alleged therein that the petitioner-accused No. 1 is a Contractor as defined in Section 2(e) of the aforesaid Act and the petitioner-accused No. 2 is the Director of the accused No. 1- Company. The complainant had visited the Establishment/worksite of the accused No. l-Company at C.E.S.C. Ltd., Titagarh Generating Station, Titagarh, on January 20, 1987 and had detected the violation of Rule 80(4) of the aforesaid Rules by non-production of records and registers as prescribed under Rules 75, 76, 77, 78(2)(a), 78(2)(b), 78(2)(c) 78(2)(d) on demand for which they were called upon to show-cause by a Memo dated February 7, 1987, which was duly served upon them; but they had failed to show any cause therefor.
(3.) It had been urged by the Learned Advocate for the petitioners during the hearing that even though the accused No. 1 is stated in the petition of Complaint to be a Contractor, as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act, it had never employed more than ten workmen on any day of the preceding twelve months. The provisions of the aforesaid Act would not, therefore, be applicable to it in view of the provisions of Section 1(4)(b) of the Act, as it now stands after amendment. But the question as to whether the accused No. 1 employs or employed on any day of the preceding twelve months, ten or more workmen is indeed a question of fact to be decided by the court below during the hearing which could not clearly be agitated before this court in this Application under Section 482 of the Code. It is certainly not for this Court to embark upon an enquiry on the aforesaid point in this proceedings requiring appreciation of evidence or material to support or dislodge the accusation against the accused. It would further be pertinent to note that the petitioner-accused No. 1 has been stated in the Petition of Complaint to be a Contractor within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act, obviously implying that the provisions of the relevant Act would be applicable to it. And, having regard to the allegations made in paragraph 7 of the Petition of Complaint, read with the relevant Rules mentioned therein, more particularly, Rule 80 of the Rules, a prima facie case for an offence punishable under Section 24 of the Act appears to be made out against the petitioner- accused No. 1. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that the Petition of Complaint, as it is, does not make out any offence against the petitioner-accused No. 1 cannot clearly be sustained as such. I cannot, therefore, persuade myself to accept the petitioners' contention on the aforesaid point.;