- (1.) THIS is an application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/2 Case no. 3810 of 2002. Petitioner further prays for quashing of the order dated 03/12/2002, whereby learned C.J.M. Jamshedpur took cognizance against him under section 24 of the Contract Labour( Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
(2.) IT appears that complainant -O.P.no.4 filed a complaint petition before the C.J.M. Jamshedpur, alleging therein that on 23.05.2002 at about 4.30 P.M. he inspected the premises of M/s Telco Transport Company Association ( TTCA), and asked the Executive Officer namely: - Mahesh Saran to produce registration certificate/ registers maintained in Form -XII and XIII as required under Rule 74 and 75 of the rules framed under the Contract Labour( Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 ( hereinafter referred as aforesaid Act) But the same have not been produced, which is violative of Section 29(1) and 29(2) of the aforesaid Act. It is also alleged that a show cause notice given to the petitioner for explaining the same. It is stated that the explanation given by the petitioner is unsatisfactory, hence, complaint filed. It appears that on the basis of said complaint, learned C.J.M.vide order dated 03.12.2002 took cognizance under section 24 of the aforesaid Act. Petitioner impugned the aforesaid order in present case.
(3.) MR . V.P.Singh, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that from perusal of the complaint petition it is clear that complainant inspected the premises of TTCA. But petitioner has been made accused in this case. It is submitted that petitioner is Vice -President of M/s TELCO Limited, which is a different organization. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned order is without application of mind, hence cannot be sustained. Sri Singh further submits that as per Section 25 of the aforesaid Act, if there is any violation of the Act, then the Company and the officer, who is incharge of the business of the said company is liable to be prosecuted. In this case, company has not been made accused. He further submits that there is no averments in the complaint petition that at the relevant time petitioner was incharge and/ or responsible for the conduct of the business of TTCA. Sri Singh submitted that in that circumstances also impugned order and entire criminal proceeding is liable to be set aside.;