G.K. Venkatesan vs State

S.R. Singharavelu, J.—Criminal Original Petition No.6392 of 2005 is filed to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the

complaint in C.C.No.985 of 2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Sholingar and quash the same.

Since all these matters are similar in nature and the contentions raised in each one of them are also similar, these petitions are taken up together

and a common order is being passed.

Crl.O.P.No.6392 of 2005 is filed by one G.K. Venkatesan, who is said to be one of the Contractors of Brakes India Limited, Foundry

Division, Pandiyanallur, Sholingar. The respondent / Inspector of Factories, Vellore filed a case against the petitioner on the ground that he had

contravened the provisions of Section 29(1) & (2), Rule 75 and section 29(1) & (2), Rule 76(1) and section 29(1) & (2) Rule 76(ii) under

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and Tamil Nadu Contract Labour Rules 1975, alleging that on inspection by the Deputy

Chief Inspector of Factories, Vellore in the factory premises of Brakes India Foundry Division, Sholingar, on 20.05.2003 at about 3.00 pm, he

found contravention of the provisions of Contract Labour Act and Rules.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint filed by the Inspector of Factories, Vellore, is in contravention of the Act

including Section 26 and Section 28 of the said Act.

Section 26 runs as follows :

No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by or with the previous sanction in writing of, the

inspector and no court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.

Section 28 runs as follows :

(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be inspectors for the purposes

of this Act and define the local limits within which they shall exercise their powers under this Act.

(2) ...... an inspector may, within the local limits for which he is appointed.

(a) enter .... any premises ..... for the purposes of examining any register or record or notices required to be kept or exhibited by or under this Act

or rules made thereunder and require the production thereof for inspection.

(b) examine any person ....who, he has reasonable cause to belief, is a workman .....

(c) require any person giving out work and any workman, to give any information ......... and with respect to the payments to be made for the

work;

(d) seize or take copies of such register ..... as he may consider relevant in respect of an offence under this Act which he has reason to believe has

been committed by the principal employer or contractor; and

(e) exercise such other powers as may be prescribed ....

Originally, there was a notification issued in G.O. Ms. No: 118 Labour and Employment dated 12.4.91 whereby the powers were delegated to

various officials and in supersession of that G.O. and also in exercise of powers granted u/s 28 of the Act. G.O.Ms.No: 229, Labour and

Employment H1 dated 22.12.99 was passed in and by which the Government had appointed Deputy Commissioner of Labour I, Chennai,

Assistant Commissioner of Labour in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai, and inspectors of Labour, Chennai to be

inspectors for the purposes of the said Act and define the local limits within which they shall exercise their powers under the said Act.

Thus, on and from 22,12,1999, the statutory inspectors u/s 28 of the said Act for Vellore District are the inspectors of Labour, besides Deputy

Commissioner of Labour and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, working in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai.

The present complaint was subsequent to the inspection made on 20.5.2003. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the Factory Inspector who is

the complainant herein was not authorised to file the complaint and so the complainant do not have the legal sanctity as it was a clear violation of

the Government notification issued u/s 28 of the Act.

I have carefully gone into the aspects of the case and I find that the complaint was filed by a person who was not authorized to do under the

Act. The authorities have not taken care to see that only under notification in G.O. No: 118, Labour and Employment dated 12.4.91 Factory

Inspector could make complaint and that, that G.O. had been superseded and another G.O. 229 dated 22.12.99 was passed wherein it was only

Labour Inspectors and others and not the Factory Inspectors were enabled to file such complaint. Therefore, the complaint is without legal

sanction. It is not filed by competent authority and, hence, the complaint is quashed with liberty to make a fresh complaint for future offences in

accordance with law subject to limitation. These criminal original petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.Ps. are closed.