The revision petitioner challenges the concurrent findings in the judgments of the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge convicting him for offences punishable under Rules 81(1)(i), 81(2), 71 and 75 read with Rules 80(1) and 76 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1971 (“the Rules”, for short).
2. Facts, in brief, are as follows: The complainant is the Labour Enforcement Officer functioning under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short, “the Act”). He functions as the Inspector appointed under Section 28(1) of the Act. Revision petitioner is a contractor within the meaning of Sec.2(c) of the Act in relation to work of loading and unloading of LPG cylinders at Indian Oil Corporation's bottling plant, Chelari. It is alleged in the complaint that the revision petitioner/accused was in charge of and responsible for the company for the conduct of the business. In the complaint, it is further alleged that the accused was performing the work of a registered establishment by employing contract labourers. On the date of inspection by PW1, there were 32 contract workers working in the premises. The wage period for the workers was monthly.
3. The complaint further proceeds that on 16.06.1997, PW1 inspected the establishment run by the petitioner within his jurisdiction and noticed the following irregularities:
“1) Accused was not displaying of notices showing the rates of wages, hours of work, wage periods, date of payment of wages, name and address of the inspectors, having jurisdiction and date of payment of unpaid wages in English, Hindi and Malayalam at the worksite.
2) He had failed to submit the copies of the notices displayed/required to be displayed as per Rule 81(1)(i) to the Inspector.
3) Non display of notices showing the wages period, place and time of disbursement of wages at the worksite and its copy not sent to the Principal Employer under acknowledgment.
4) Non maintenance of Register of persons employed at the worksite.
5) Non issue of wage slips to the contract labour though their wage period is monthly.
6) Non issue of employment cards to the contract labour though the workers were working more than a days continuously.”
The complainant issued a show cause notice (Ext.P3). The petitioner/accused neither sent any reply nor rectified the irregularities pointed out. Hence the prosecution.
4. At the time of trial, PWs 1 and 2 and DWs 1 and 2 were examined on both sides. Exts.P1 to P6 and Exts.D1 to D3 were marked.
5. Heard Shri M.P.M.Aslam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.Madhu Ben, learned Public Prosecutor.
6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the courts below did not consider the legal issues involved in the case correctly. According to him, the fact that the Act applied to the establishment was not properly proved. It is the contention that neither the testimony of PW1 nor Ext.P2 is sufficient to find that 32 persons were working in the premises at the material time. Ext.P2 is the inspection report proved by PW1. According to him, at the time of inspection, PW2 and one Manual, who was the supervisor of the revision petitioner, were present. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that there is no material on record to show that Manual was an employee under the revision petitioner. In this context, it is relevant to note that in Ext.P2 signature of Manual was obtained by PW1. That apart, PW1 in his evidence stated that the inspection was done in the presence of the said Manual, who was the supervisor employed by the revision petitioner. There is no challenge to this version. Hence, it cannot be heard to say that there was no inspection conducted by PW1 at the premises.
7. Another contention raised by the revision petitioner is that there is no material except a list produced along with Ext.P2, to show that there were 32 workers working in the premises at the time of inspection. Ext.P2 was proved through PW1. There is no challenge to the assertion made by PW1 that there were 33 employees regularly working and on the date of inspection, 32 employees were present at the premises. In the absence of any challenge to the oral evidence of PW1 or to the list attached to Ext.P2, the revisional court cannot look into the correctness of the evidence.
8. Ext.P3 notice issued after inspection by PW1 was dated 16.06.1997. Acknowledgment card produced would show that the revision petitioner received the notice on 26.06.1997. There is no case for the revision petitioner that he had rectified the irregularities pointed out in Ext.P3. Courts below have correctly analysed the evidence and found that the revision petitioner is guilty for the offences alleged against him. I find no irregularity or illegality or impropriety in the conviction and sentence.
Therefore, the revision petition is found to be meritless and it is dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks