D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) ALL the five Cr. Misc. Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been taken up together, arising out of common question of law and almost on similar facts.
(2.) THE prosecution story in short was that the complainant/opposite party No. 2 Rajesh Prasad, Labour Superintendent -cum -Inspector under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 had visited in the factory premises of Tube Division of M/s. TISCO Ltd. Jamshedpur on 24.12.2004 and observed that the different contractors were getting the work done by the contract labourers in spite of prohibition of employment of contract labourers in the concerned work vide Notification No. 10/F -1 -4050/90 L and E 838 dated 20.12.1991 issued by the Government in the department of Labour Employment and Training under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and thereby the petitioners, who were common in all the five petitions aforesaid, violated the provision of Section 10 of the said Act. Cr.M.P. No. 1111 of 2005 In this petition arising out of Complaint Case No. C/2 - 1700/05, it was alleged that in course of inspection made in the factory premises of M/s. TISCO Ltd. (Tube Division) Jamshedpur on 24.12.2004, the complainant observed that the contractor M/s. Singh Associates was getting the work of cutting of wastage materials executed by five contract labourers in 'Scrap yard' inside the factory premises in spite of prohibition of employment of contract labourers In the said work vide Notification No. 10/F -1 -4050/90 L and E 838 dated 20.12.1991 and thereby the petitioners violated the provision of Section 10 of the said Act. Cr. M.P. No. 1112 of 2005 In complaint case No. C/2 -1703/05, it was alleged that during course of inspection of M/s. TISCO Ltd. (Tube Division) Jamshedpur on 24.12.2004 the complainant observed that the contractor M/s. Vishwakarma Enterprises was getting the work of electrical maintenance executed by five contract labourers in spite of prohibition of employment under the notification dated 20.12.1991 referred to above, Issued by the Government in the department of Labour Employment and Training under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 and thereby the petitioners violated the provisions of Section 10 of the said Act. Cr. M.P. No. 1115 of 200S In this petition arising out of complaint case No. C/2 -1702/05 the complainant alleged that on the same day i.e. 24.12.2004 at about 3.45 p.m. he observed that the contractor M/s. KBS Enterprises was getting the work of electrical maintenance done by five contract labourers in the Tube Division of M/s. TISCO. Jamshedpur in spite of prohibition of employment of contract labourers in the aforesaid work under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and thereby, the petitioners contravened the provision of Section 10 of the said Act. Cr. M.P. No. 1116 of 2005 Similarly in the complaint case No. C/2 -1701/05 against the petitioners that on the same day i.e. 24.12.2004 at about 4 p.m. it was observed in the factory premises of said establishment that the contractor M/s. Arunodya Electricals was getting the work of electrical maintenance executed by eight contract labourers inspite of prohibition of employment of contract labourers in the said work, vide notification dated 20.12.1991 issued by the Government in the department of Labour Employment and Training referred to above, under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 and thereby the petitioners violated the provision of Section 10 of the Act. Cr. M.P. No. 1117 of 2005 The complainant alleged in the Complaint case No. C/2 -1699/05 that on the same day i.e on 24.12.2004 at about 3.50 p.m. he visited the factory premises of M/s. TISCO (Tube Division) and observed that the contractor M/s. D.P. Bodhanwala was getting the work of loading/unloading of scrap materials done by eight contract labourers in spite of prohibition of employment contract labourers in the aforesaid work and thereby the petitioners violated the provision of Section 10 of the said Act.
(3.) IN all the above five complaint cases instituted at the Instance of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 herein, it was alleged that all the petitioners including the petitioner No. 4 S.M. Hussain, Executive Incharge and Principal employer had been getting the work done through various contractors in which the contract labourers were employed in contravention of the Notification No. 10/F -1 -4050/90 L and E 838 dated 20.12.1991 issued by the Government under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 which prohibited the employment of contract labourers relating to the work of storage, cutting, carrying, loading/unloading of the rejected materials declared by the company as also the work of electrical maintenance of Indian Tube Company Ltd.;