D.G.R. PATNAIK, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONERS in this application, filed under Section 482 of the Cr. PC, have prayed for quashing the order dated May 8, 2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Case No. CIII-47 of 2003 whereby, cognizance for the offences under Sections 23/24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, was taken against the petitioners. From the facts as stated, it appears that on February 11, 2003, the opposite party no. 2, Assistant Labour Commissioner had visited the works site of the petitioner no. 1 namely, Kamala Construction Company and had found a number of irregularities which amounted to violation of not only the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, but also the Rules framed thereunder. After pointing out the defects to the person in-charge of the establishment, the Assistant Labour Commissioner issued a notice directing the person in-charge of the establishment as also the other persons associated with the Management of the Firm/Establishment to appear and explain as to why a proceeding should not be initiated against them for violation of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It appears that when no response was received from the noticee, and on the allegation that the defects which was pointed out, had not been removed, a complaint by way of prosecution report was lodged by the Assistant Labour Commissioner before the Court below and on the basis of the complaint/prosecution report, cognizance for the aforementioned offences, was taken against the petitioners.
(3.) ASSAILING the impugned order of cognizance, learned counsel for the petitioners would plead several grounds including the ground that the proceeding ought not to have been initiated against the several persons including those who are not concerned with day to day affairs and Management of the establishment of the petitioner no. 1 company. The initiation of the proceeding against the petitioner nos. 4 and 6 on the mere basis that they happen to be the partners of the Firm, is illegal since there is no specific allegation that these two ladies are actively involved in any manner with the Management and affairs of the works of the petitioner no. 1 company. Learned counsel adds that even as per the complaint/prosecution report, the accused no. 7 was the only person who was found present by the Assistant Labour Commissioner at the works site and even according to the complaint, he was the person in-charge of the works site at the relevant time. The allegation against the petitioner no. 7 namely, Ashok Kumar Choudhary is that he had refused to receive the notice served upon him by the complainant. Learned counsel adds further that the learned Court below has seriously erred in law by issuing warrants of arrest, both bailable and non-bailable and even processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr. PC, without receiving the service report of the summons which was purportedly issued against the petitioners. To support this contention, learned counsel invites attention to the copy of the order sheet of the learned Court below.;