IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6587 OF 2015 A/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6588 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
1. MR ANIL BHALLA (MAJOR) CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MINACS PVT LTD, EARLIER KNOWN AS ADITYA BIRLA MINACS WORLD WIDE LIMITED, 3RD FLOOR MILLENIUM TOWER ITPL ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 037 2. ADITYA BIRLA MINACS WORLD WIDE LIMITED REP BY MRS. VASANTHIKA SRINATH (MAJOR), DIRECTOR, 3RD FLOOR, MILLENIUM TOWER ITPL ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 037 ... PETITIONERS (COMMON) (BY SRI: J: PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND STATE REPRESENTED BY LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER(CENTRAL) “SHRAM SADAN”, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN, 2ND PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE - 560 022 ... RESPONDENT (COMMON) (CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT-ABSENT) THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND THE ORDER DATED 10.03.2015 TAKING COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE BY THE MMTC - III, BENGALURU IN C.C.No.2102/2014 (CRL.P NO.6587 OF 2015), IN C.C.No.2103/2014 (CRL.P.6588 OF 2015), FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R In both these petitions petitioners have challenged the action initiated against them by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) for the alleged violations of Rules 81(2), 25(2)(viii), 75, 76(j), 78(1)(a)(i), (ii), (iii), 78(1)(b), 82(1) of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’).
2. Placing reliance on Section 2A of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Registration Certificate of the establishment issued by the Senior Labour Inspector, Circle-15 Bengaluru, learned counsel for the petitioners emphasized that in relation to the establishment of the petitioners, the appropriate Government is the State Government, whereas, the impugned action has been initiated by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) contrary to Section 2A of the Act. In support of his submission learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Victor Joseph, Regl.M.D., Group 4 Securities Guarding Ltd. and Another v.
State. Rep. by Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour (2006-I-LLJ 161) 3. Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent is absent and has not addressed any argument.
4. On considering the applicability of Section 2A of the Act, this Court has held in the above decision that in view of the definition of ‘appropriate Government’ as found in Section 2(1)(a) of the Act, only the ‘appropriate Government’ specified therein is competent to take/initiate action for violation of the provisions of the Act. In the instant case, establishment of the petitioners having been covered by the said enactment, initiation of action by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) is violative of Section 2A of the Act and as a result, impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed on the ground of jurisdiction.
As a result, without entering into any discussion on the other contentions urged by the petitioners, the Petitions are allowed. Proceedings pending on the file of MMTC-III, Bangalore, in C.C.No.2102/2014 and C.C.No.2103/2014 are quashed.
Liberty is reserved to the appropriate Government to take action for the alleged violations, if any, in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE rs