Durganand Koshta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:61498

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 3523 of 2025

¶6

Durganand Koshta S/o Anand Koshta Aged About 40 Years District Manager Dominos Pizza Pvt. Ltd. Beside Manokamna Bhawan, Nagpur Road, Rajnandgaon, P.S. Basantpur, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Labour, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, C.G.

¶10

2 - Labour Commissioner Labour Dept. Block- 3, 2nd Floor Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, C.G.

¶11

3 - Deputy Labour Commissioner Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Labour Inspector Labour Dept. Block- 3, 2nd Floor Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - Station House Officer P.S. Basantpur, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶14

6 - Labour Judge Labour Court Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶15

--- Respondent

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul Ambast, Mr. Ashutosh Shrivastava, Ms. Shotabdi Bagchi, Advocate.

¶17

For Respondent/State : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA.

¶18

2

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board

¶20

17/12/2025

¶21

With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.

¶22

Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief:

¶23

“It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set-aside the impugned cognizance order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the Ld. Labour Court, Rajnandgaon in Labour Case no. 121/2024 as well as the entire complaint case no. 121/2024 filed by the Labour Inspector Rajnandgaon pending before the Labour Judge Rajnandgaon for alleged violation of provisions of Section 12 & 14 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act of 1986, in the interest of justice.”

¶24

Relevant facts of this case are that the petitioner is the Area Manager of Jubilant Food Works Limited ("JFL"); JFL owns and operates a restaurant at Ground Floor, Manokamana PH No.24 W N19 Kaurinbhata, G E Road, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh under the brand name 'Domino's Pizza ("Store"). For operation of the said Store, JFL is also having license issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh, Health and Family Welfare Department under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 ("FSSAI License").

¶25

On 10.12.2023, respondent/Labour Inspector conducted an inspection in the Store of JFL and prepared an Inspection Report, in which, respondent/Labour Inspector has written a finding that the Store has not complied with the provision of Section 12 of the

¶26

3

¶27

Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act,

¶28

1986 (for short, Act of 1986’), which requires display of abstract of Section 3A and 14 of the Act of 1986. Pursuant to the inspection conducted on 10.12.2023, a show-cause notice dated 23.01.2024 was issued by the Labour Officer wherein the Petitioner amongst others was directed to respond as to why proceedings under Section 14 of the Act of 1986 should not be initiated against them. In response to the show-cause notice, JFL (being the owner / occupier of the Store) produced a compliance report dated 25.01.2024 stating that the Management of JFL has complied with Section 12 of the Act of 1986 by displaying the notice in Hindi and English language and also submitted a copy of the abstract to the Labour Officer.

¶29

Complaint case was listed before the learned Labour Court on 21.03.2024, on which date, the Labour Court has taken cognizance of the complaint by way of passing the unreasoned order. Subsequently, the Ld. Labour Court passed the impugned order dated 26.07.2024 issuing notice upon the petitioner and pursuant to which, summon was issued. The Petitioner, upon receiving the summons, entered appearance and prayed for issuance of bail and, thereafter, released on bail. Hence, this petition.

¶30

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that learned Labour Court has sent into motion a frivolous and vexatious criminal process based on a cryptic and unreasoned cognizance order dated 26.07.2024, issuance of which is completely unwarranted in the

¶31

4

¶32

facts of the present case. It is a settled law that order of cognizance must reflect the facts which weighed with the Magistrate and should also indicated the application of mind to the accusations made in the compliant. In the present case, the cognizance order dated 26.07.2024 is completely silent and demonstrates abject nonapplication of mind. Section 227 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 204 of CrPC) provided that the Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence only if "there is sufficient ground for proceeding".

¶33

Section 227 of BNSS reads as under:

¶34

“227. Issue of process. (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be---

¶35

(a) a summons-case, he shall issue summons to the accused for his attendance....”

¶36

In the present case, the cognizance order dated 26.07.2024 does

¶37

not indicate any sufficient grounds for proceedings against the petitioner, when the non-compliance has been duly remedied in response to the show cause notice itself. As such, order dated 21.03.2024 is illegal and violative of the legislative mandate contained in Section 227 of BNSS. Even if the complaint case is taken at face value, no case worthy of trial is made out against the present petitioner/non-applicant for the alleged commission of offenses under Section 12 & 14 of the Act of 1986, as on the date of filing the complaint case, there was no legally enforceable violation of any provisions of Section 12 & 14 of the Act of 1986. Hence,

¶38

5

¶39

petitioner came up before this Court with aforesaid prayer.

¶40

Learned State Counsel opposes the submission/prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that Labour Court has rightly passed the impugned order observing the fact that on the date of inspection by the Labour Officer, there is no display notice either Hindi or English in the alleged Domino's Pizza, Store. Hence, there is no need to interfere in the impugned order.

¶41

Section 223 of the BNSS 2023 reads as under:

¶42

“223. Examination of complainant. (1) A Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:

¶43

Provided that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard”

¶44

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, came into force on 01^st of July 2024; the BNSS replaced the previous procedural law, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

¶45

It is pertinent to mention here that Sections 223 & 227 of BNSS provides that Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence only if "there is sufficient ground for proceeding" and no cognizance of an

¶46

6

¶47

offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard, however, in this case, Labour Court has taken the cognizance without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is against the provision of Section 223 of the BNSS, 2023. Hence, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the concerned Labour Court with a direction to pass fresh order regarding cognizance of offence after giving proper/sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶48

Accordingly, impugned cognizance order dated 26.07.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the concerned Labour Court with a direction to give proper/sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, thereafter, proceed as per relevant rules/law with regard to the cognizance of offence.

¶49