This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ritwick Rai,Alok Kumar Singh,Ankit Kumar Pandey,Ashutosh Verma,Aviral Raj Singh,Dhruv Kumar Singh,Palash Banerjee,Vaibhav Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ritwick Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. Issue notice to opposite party No.2 returnable at an early date, for which, necessary steps be taken within a week.
3. Office to proceed accordingly.
4. By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(i) To quash the impugned complaint (Annexure No.1 to the Application) filed against the Applicant Company, vide Case No.114084 of 2023; titled as 'Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) vs. GSEC Bird Airport Services Pvt. Ltd.', under Sections 23/ 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolishment) Act, 1970, PS-Sarojini Nagar, District-Lucknow, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.
(ii) To quash the impugned cognizance/ summoning order dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure No.2 to the Application), passed by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow against the Applicant Company, thereby summoning it as an accused in connection with Case No.114084 of 2023; titled as 'Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) vs. GSEC Bird Airport Services Pvt. Ltd.', under Sections 23/ 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolishment) Act, 1970, PS-Sarojini Nagar, District-Lucknow, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.
(iii) To quash the entire consequential proceedings pursuant to the impugned complaint against the Applicant Company in connection with Case No.114084 of 2023; titled as 'Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) vs. GSEC Bird Airport Services Pvt. Ltd.', under Sections 23/ 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolishment) Act, 1970, PS-Sarojini Nagar, District-Lucknow, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Lucknow, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow."
5. At the very outset, learned Additional Government Advocate has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition by submitted that the petitioner has assailed the summoning order and that summoning order may be assailed by filing revision before the learned Session Judge as the statutory and alternative remedy may not be circumvent.
6. Replying the aforesaid objection of learned Additional Government Advocate, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has not only assailed the summoning order but has assailed the complaint as the impugned complaint is misconceived on the face of it inasmuch as the said complaint could have not been filed against the petitioner. He has further submitted that the impugned complaint may only be set aside/ quashed by this Court invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and not by the Revisional Court.
7. Sri Mathur, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has stated that the Applicant Company is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and was incorporated on 20.03.2021. The Applicant Company is mainly involved in providing 'ground handling' services in the aviation industry, which include a wide range of functions, including (i) airport appearance and provisioning, (ii) catering, (iii) ramp service, (iv) cargo service, (v) passenger service, (vi) field operations service etc. The Applicant Company is filing the instant application through one Mr. Deepak Sharma, currently working as Airport Manager, Lucknow Airport, in the Applicant Company, who has been duly authorized to do the same, by means of a Board Resolution dated 26.02.2024. As a matter of fact, the Applicant Company is running its operations at Chaudhary Charan Singh, International Airport, Lucknow since 26.07.2021, pursuant to a 'Concessionaire Agreement' which was executed between Adani Lucknow International Airport Ltd (viz. Managing the Operations/ Functioning at the Lucknow Airport) and the Applicant Company.
8. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.12 of the petition, which is an application for supplying of the information under Right to Information Act, 2005 (here-in-after referred to as the "R.T.I. Act") preferred by one Sri Lalit Bharadwaj, but the information so sought is also relevant for the petitioner, therefore, attention has been drawn towards such letter dated 05.06.2012. By means of the aforesaid letter, the status of M/s Air India-SATS, Celebi, BWFS and CAPL have
been asked and it has also been asked as to whether the petitioner and others are required to obtain licence under the Act. The reply thereto has been given under R.T.I. Act vide letter dated 02.07.2012 by the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, New Delhi which clearly indicates that the petitioner and others are the Principal Employers. The Principal Employers are not required to obtain licence under the Act, however, they are required to obtain Registration Certificate under the Act.
9. Thereafter, Sri Mathur, learned Senior Advocate has drawn attention of this Court towards Sections 23 & 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolishment) Act, 1970, under which sections the complaint has been filed. The complaint under Section 23 may be filed only if any person has not obtained licence under the Act and Section 24 refers other offences.
10. Sri Mathur, learned Senior Advocate has precisely submitted that since the petitioner being a Principal Employer was not required to obtain lincece under the Act, then no complaint under Section 23 of the Act can be lodged against him, so the impugned complaint is misconceived, so far as the present petitioner is concerned.
11. Sri Mathur, learned Senior Advocate has referred Annexure No.10 of the petition which is a true copy of the judgment of acquittal dated 30.08.2019 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-04, Patiala House Courts, New-Delhi.
12. So as to make its grievance clear, the learned Senior Advocate has drawn attention of this Court towards paras-31 & 32 of the aforesaid acquittal order whereby the learned court concerned while acquitting the petitioner for the offence has observed that the Principal Employer may not be implicated under Section 23 of the Act. For convenience, paras-31 & 32 of the aforesaid judgment dated 30.08.2019 are being reproduced here-in-below:-
"31. A workman shall be deemed to have been employed as contract labour when he is hired in, or in connection with a particular work of the Principal Employer. The determinative factor, therefore, is whether a workman was hired in or in connection with work o an establishment. A permanent employee who during his employment can be placed at different establishments at the choice of the contractor cannot be called to be a contract labour because he is not hired in or in connection with the work of any particular establishment. The logic behind this conclusion is that where employment of a person is unrelated with any specific work of any establishment, he is not a contract labour, because his employment has no nexus with any particular work of any establishment. The terms of engagement of two of the employees were filed as a specimen sample. The defence witness has not been asked if similar terms existed for other
employees or not. Rather, no question regarding terms of employment has been asked and it has not been denied the accused company had only regular employees and no workmen.
32. From a perusal of the employment letters, it is apparent that the engagement was not in or in connection with any work of any particular establishment. The employees of BWFS were servicing various airlines at the same time. They were not hired for a particular job. They were not working for any hire or reward. Merely because accused company undertook to render any particular service to Thai Airways and engaged its employees for ground handing operations of Thai Airways, it does not ipso facto lead to engagement of contract labour, unless persons who are engaged were hired for any particular job. That is the distinctive feature as held in the above stated judgment."
13. The matter requires consideration.
14. Let the counter affidavit be filed within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.
15. List this petition in the week commencing 08.04.2024 within top ten cases.
16. Till the next date of listing, the further proceedings of Case No.114084 of 2023; Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) vs. GSEC Bird Airport Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra), shall remain stayed.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Order Date :- 4.3.2024 Suresh/
Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/S Gsec Bird Airport Services Pvt. Ltd.
State Of U.P.
Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Suresh Chandra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
