IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1993 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
1. SRI PRAKASH CHANDRA KAPOOR MANAGING DIRECTOR OF BHARATI SHIPYARD LIMITED KUDROLI BENGRE VILLAGE TANNIRBHAVI VILLAGE MANGALORE 575 001 2. VIJAY KUMAR MANAGING DIRECTOR OF BHARATI SHIPYARD LIMITED KUDROLI BENGRE VILLAGE TANNIRBHAVI VILLAGE MANGALORE 575 001 3. V V KAMATH MANAGING DIRECTOR OF BHARATI SHIPYARD LIMITED KUDROLI BENGRE VILLAGE TANNIRBHAVI VILLAGE MANGALORE 575 001 4. R C THAMBA MANAGING DIRECTOR OF BHARATI SHIPYARD LIMITED KUDROLI BENGRE VILLAGE TANNIRBHAVI VILLAGE MANGALORE 575 001 5. CMDE V SIQUERA PRESIDENT AND HEAD BHARATI SHIPYARD LIMITED KUDROLI BENGRE VILLAGE TANNIRBHAVI VILLAGE MANGALORE 575 001 6. MAHESH M N ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER (TECHNICAL) AND FACTORY MANAGER BHARATI SHIPYARD LIMITED KUDROLI BENGRE VILLAGE TANNIRBHAVI VILLAGE MANGALORE 575 001. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: AJAY PRABHU.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI: SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE) AND THE LABOUR OFFICER SUB-DIVISION-II DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE-575001.
(BY SRI: NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP) ... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.4024/2013 ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C.-II, MANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 23 AND 24 OF CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION & ABOLITION) ACT, 1970 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THERETO.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP appearing for the respondent. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4024/2013 on the file of JMFC-II Court, Mangaluru for the offences punishable under sections 23 and 24 of the Contract Labour(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970(for short ‘the Act’).
3. Impugned proceedings were initiated by the respondent by filing a complaint under Section 24 of the Act alleging violations of provisions of the Act. According to the complainant, the establishment in question was inspected on 10.07.2013 and certain irregularities were noticed. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners on 21.08.2013. A reply thereto was submitted by the petitioners. Thereafter, a final notice dated 28.09.2013 was issued and since the petitioners failed to comply with the demands made therein, a complaint was lodged on 12.12.2013.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Section 27 of the Act and placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Crl.P.No.7371/2015 dated 22.03.2016 would submit that the prosecution initiated against the petitioners is barred under law and therefore the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
5. Learned HCGP does not dispute the fact that this Court has considered the implications of Section 27 of the Act in the above decision and has held that the complaint lodged after expiry of period of three months is barred by time.
Section 27 of the Act reads as under:-
Limitation of prosecutions.-No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act unless the complaint thereof is made within three months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an inspector: -No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act unless the complaint thereof is made within three months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an inspector:" Provided that where the offence consists of disobeying a written order made by an inspector, complaint thereof may be made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed.
6. In the case on hand, the complaint is lodged for violation of provisions of the Act. According to the complainant, said violation came to the knowledge of the Inspector on 10.07.2013. The complaint is filed for violation of the provisions of the Act and not for disobeying of the written order made by the Inspector. Under the said circumstances, in view of the provision of Section 27 of the Act, the complaint ought to have been filed within three months from the date of knowledge of the offence i.e., on or before 09.11.2013. But the complaint is filed only on 12.12.2013 beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the Act. As a result, impugned complaint being barred by limitation, cognizance taken by the learned magistrate and the consequent proceedings initiated against the petitioners being illegal cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. Proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.4024/2013 on the file of JMFC- II Court, Mangaluru are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-