Allowed

Ms Tata Motors Ltd. Telco through Its Assistant General Manager Legal Namely Mr R K Das v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC9 Mar 2015Cr.M.P./1201/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition of Tata Motors Ltd. Quashing the entire criminal proceeding under Complaint Case C2-5371 of 2008 against the petitioner, relying on a prior order quashing proceedings against similarly situated co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. C2-5371 of 2008 including the order dated 12.12.2008 so far as the petitioner is concerned.

Ms Tata Motors Ltd. Telco through Its Assistant General… — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1201 of 2014

¶2

M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., Telco Jamshedpur through its Assistant General Manger (Legal) namely, Mr. R. K. Das son of late P. N. Das, resident of 15, Viveka Nand Road, PO Baridih, PS Sidhgora, District East Singhbhum

¶3

… … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶6

2.Kameshwar Ram father's name not know to the petitioner Labour Superintendent cum Inspector, Jamshedpur PO & PS Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum

¶7

… … Opposite Parties

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶9

--For the Petitioner : M/s. V. P. Singh, Senior Advocate, Amit Kr. Das, Ashok Kr. Sinha & Rashmi Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party No. 1 : Mr. V. K. Tiwary, A.P.P. For the Opposite Party No. 2 : None

¶10

6/09.03.2015 Heard Mr. V. P. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. K. Tiwary, learned counsel for the State.

¶11

No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 in spite of the valid service of notice.

¶12

It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that arising out of Complaint case no. C2-5371 of 2008, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 12.12.2008 has been quashed so far as accused nos. 2 and 3 are concerned vide order dated 31.07.2013 in Cr.M.P. No. 134 of 2009 and the case of the petitioner is similarly situated to those accused persons whose cases have been quashed by this Court.

¶13

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer, but admits that the case is squarely covered by the decision rendered in Cr.M.P. No. 134 of 2009.

¶14

The order dated 31.07.2013 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 134 of 2009 is quoted hereinbelow:

¶15

“ Having heard learned, counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that the case of the prosecution so far these petitioners, who are the employees of the

¶16

-2-

¶17

principal employer, are concerned, they had never given information about the canteen being run in the premises of the Tata Motors by M/s. Radha Krishna Hospitality Services Pvt. Limited and that Form-V had never been issued by the principal employer to have licence by M/s. Radha Krishna Hospitality Services Pvt, Limited, but both the allegations seem to be baseless, in view of the fact that the principal employer had already issued Form-V to the concerned person intimating therein that the principal employer had engaged M/s. Radha Krishna Hospitality Services Pvt. Limited for providing services for Guest house and food supply.

¶18

Further more, when licence of M/s. Radha Krishna Hospitality Services Pvt. Limited had been cancelled, the authority should have waited for at least 30 days which is the statutory period for preferring an appeal against the order of cancellation. Similarly, it does appear that the principal employer had already given information with respect to amendment in registration certificate of the Tata Motors, Jamshedpur which would be evident from the said letter dated 27.06.2008 which has been made part of the complaint petition. Therefore, under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners cannot be said to have contravened the provision as contained either in Rule 18(4) or Rule 21(2) of the Contract Labour [Regulation and Abolition] Rule.

¶19

So far the offence under Section 12(1) of the Contract Labour [Regulation & Abolition] Act, 1970 is concerned, that does not get attracted in case of the principal employer:

¶20

The provision reads as follows:

¶21

12 Licensing of Contractors :

¶22

(1) With effect from such date as the appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, no contractor to whom this Act applies, shall undertake or execute any work through contract labour except under and in accordance with a licence issued in that behalf by the licensing Officer.

¶23

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a licence under sub-section(1) may contain such conditions including in particular conditions as to hours of work, fixation of wages and other essential amenities in respect of contract labour as the appropriate government may deem fit to impose in accordance with the rules if any, made under Section 35 and shall be issued on payment of such fees and on the deposit of such sum, if any, as security for the due performance of the conditions as may be prescribed.

¶24

From its reading, it does appear that it is for the Contractor to have licence to undertake or execute any work through contract labour and, therefore, question of

¶25

-3-

¶26

contravention of the said provision by the Principal employer does not arise.

¶27

Under the circumstances, the entire criminal proceeding of of Complaint Case No.C 2 -5371 of 2008 including the order taking cognizance dated 12.12.2008 is hereby, set aside so far the above-named two petitioners are concerned.

¶28

In the result, this petition stands allowed.”

¶29

In view of the fact that case of similarly situated co-accused has already been quashed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 134 of 2009, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. C2-5371 of 2008 including the order dated 12.12.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur so far as petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶30

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶31

R. Shekhar Cp 3

Ms Tata Motors Ltd. Telco through Its Assistant General Manager Legal Namely Mr R K Das v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Tata Motors Ltd. Telco through Its Assistant General Manager Legal Namely Mr R K Das v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Kunti Devi and Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ashok Sarkar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

L.K.Khemka Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Shri Amit Saha And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Hari Shanker Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ram Sewak Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.