- (1.) Heard Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned Counsel for the opposite parties. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/2 Case No. 2215 of 2005 including the order dated 8.6.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 ('the Act' for short). A written complaint was filed by the opposite party No. 2 in the capacity of Labour Superintendent-cum-Inspector, Jamshedpur in which it was stated that M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., Jamshedpur is a factory registered under the Factories Act, 1948. It has further been stated that in terms of Govt. Notification No. 1721 dated 30.1.1977 contract labour was banned in Telco Limited since renamed as M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. An enquiry was conducted on surprise inspection on 18.12.2004 in the premises of Tata Motors Ltd. and as per the enquiry report it was found that inspite of prohibition by the Government contract labour work was going on and it was further found that M/s. M.L. Electrical & Company was doing maintenance job at foundry division which was prohibited by the Govt. A show cause notice was asked from the management of M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. by the complainant and on the show cause being found to be unsatisfactory by the complainant, the present complaint case was instituted u/s. 10(1) and 23 of the Act.
(2.) On the complaint being filed, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur vide an order dated 8.6.2005 was pleased to take cognizance for the offences punishable under section 10(1) of the Act.
(3.) The learned senior Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order taking cognizance by submitting that section 10(1) is not a penal provision, rather the same deals with prohibition of employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. He submits that taking of cognizance under section 10(1) of the Act itself shows total non-application, of mind on the part of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. He has submitted that pursuant to the show cause notice, a reply was given by the management and since the same was found unsatisfactory, as has been indicated in the complaint petition, the said complaint was filed. It has also been submitted that there is no averment in the complaint petition that the petitioner was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time of commission of offence and in view of the same section 25 of the Act comes into play and on that basis also the entire criminal proceeding deserves tp be quashed.;