- (1.) These five Rules were obtained on five applications for quashing five proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk.
(2.) The case of the Petitioners is that Sri A.C. Nag, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) and an Inspector under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, filed complaints in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk, against the Petitioners and two others on the allegation that on July 6, 1974, the complainant inspected the establishment for the construction of Impounded Dock at Haldia and allied work of construction and noticed that the accused persons violated the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. It was specifically stated that the accused violated the provisions of Rules 25(2)(ii) and 24. It is the case of the Petitioners that the complaints were filed on October 11, 1974 and on that date the learned Magistrate took cognizance and passed an order for issuing summons against the Petitioners. On March 5, 1976 and on April 20, 1976, the Petitioners filed applications for dismissal of the complaints contending that the complaints were barred by limitation inasmuch as the period of limitation under Section 27 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, is three months from the date on which the alleged commission of offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector. It has been stated in the complaints that the knowledge was on July 6, 1974 and as the complaints were filed on October 11, 1974, the Court could not take cognizance. It is also contended that the State of West Bengal is the appropriate Government and as such the complainant is not competent to file the complaints. In this connection it is contended that the Haldia port is not a 'major port' as defined in Section 2(m) of the Major Port Act or as per definition given in Section 3(8) of the Indian Ports Act. The learned Magistrate negatived both the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioners. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners have come up before this Court.
(3.) Mr. Sankardas Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing with Mr. Priti Bhusan Barman and Mr. Ramendra Nath Chakraborty, learned Advocates, on behalf of the Petitioners, in the first place contends that the learned Magistrate was wrong to hold that the petitions of complaints were filed within three months from the date of knowledge of the offence. Admittedly, the date of knowledge is July 6, 1974. A case was sought to be made out on behalf of the complainant that in fact the petitions of complaints were filed not on October 11, 1974, but on October 7, 1974. October 6, 1974, was a holiday and that being so, the complaints were filed within time. It may be mentioned that curiously enough the petitions of complaints in all five cases along with the copies bear seal of the Court and the seal shows the date September 11, 1974. It is, however, not the complainant's case that the petitions were filed on September 11, 1974. The complainant came forward before the learned Court with a story that the petitions were filed on October 7, 1974 and the Bench clerk of the Court concerned granted a receipt. The complainant also used an affidavit in that respect. The learned Magistrate asked for an explanation from the Bench clerk and on consideration of the affidavit and in explanation of the Bench clerk the learned Magistrate found that in fact the petitions were filed on October 7, 1974 and that being so, those were filed within time. I have gone through the lengthy order passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate more than once had stated that there was some irregularity in the Court machinery, but even then for reasons best known to him he accepted the explanation of the Bench clerk. It is unknown that a Bench clerk would grant receipt to a complainant for filing complaint. It is not known how such a receipt could be obtained. It was most irregular on the part of the Bench clerk to grant such a receipt. The Court seals on the original petitions of complaints and their copies are dated September 11, 1974. It is not unreasonable to think that the petitions were filed on October 11, 1974 and on the seals the month of September was wrongly stamped in place of October. Moreover, the first order being Order No. 1 dated October 11, 1974, shows that the complaints were received by the learned Magistrate on that date and not earlier. There is nothing on record to snow besides the unacceptable explanation of the Bench clerk that the complaints were filed earlier. I, therefore, hold that the petitions of complaints were filed on October 11, 1974 and that being so, those were filed beyond three months from the date of knowledge.;