Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, the Chief Manager of Federal Bank Ltd., filed a criminal writ petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of a complaint filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer (respondent no. 2) under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The complaint alleged that the petitioner, as principal employer, failed to display notices showing rates of wages, hours of work, wage period, and dates of payment of wages at the Vasco and Porvorim branches of the bank, in violation of Rule 74 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. The petitioner argued that the duty to display such notices under Rule 74 is on the contractor, not the principal employer, and therefore the complaint was not maintainable. The court examined Rule 74 and found that it explicitly requires the contractor to display the notices. The court noted that Section 24 of the Act penalizes contravention of the Act or Rules by the person on whom the duty is cast. Since the duty to display notices was on the contractor, the principal employer could not be prosecuted for such failure. The court also observed that the complaint did not allege any other breach by the petitioner. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the complaint and the summons, and discharged the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Contract Labour - Principal Employer - Liability under Section 24 - Non-Display of Notices - The issue was whether the principal employer can be prosecuted under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 for non-display of notices under Rule 74 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. The court held that Rule 74 casts the duty to display notices on the contractor, not the principal employer, and therefore the principal employer cannot be held liable for such omission. The complaint was quashed. (Paras 4-7) B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of Complaint - The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the complaint and summons, as the allegations did not disclose any offence against the petitioner. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, as principal employer, can be prosecuted under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 for non-display of notices under Rule 74 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971, when the duty to display such notices is on the contractor.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The complaint bearing Criminal Case No.19/L/2012/A pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco-da-Gama and the summons dated 17/05/2012 issued therein are quashed. The petitioner is discharged.
Law Points
- Obligation to display notices under Rule 74 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules
- 1971 is on the contractor
- not the principal employer
- Section 24 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act
- 1970 applies only to contraventions of the Act and Rules by the person on whom the duty is cast
- Principal employer cannot be prosecuted for failure to display notices when the duty is on the contractor
