Allowed

P.R.Sriram v. the Inspector of Factories

Madras HC23 Jan 2020CRL OP/25774/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed criminal original petitions and quashed proceedings under the Building and Other Construction Workers Act. The Court relied on precedents holding that impleading the company is mandatory when filing a complaint against its Executive Director.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petitions allowed; proceedings in S.T.C.Nos. 880, 895, 898, 894, 899, 892, 907 and 900 of 2011 quashed.

P.R.Sriram Vs the Inspector of Factories — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.01.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

Crl.O.P.Nos.25774 to 25781 of 2011

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.25774 of 2011:

¶7

Thiru P.R.Sriram ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.25774 / 2011 25777/2011,25779/2011

¶8

Thiru P.R.Sriram S/o.Thiru P.R.Rajagopal Employer Bharat Heavy ElectricalsLtd., Work site, NTPC Tamil Nadu Energy Company Ltd Vallur Thermal Power Project Vellivoyal Chavadi Post, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District,

¶9

Chennai-103. ...Petitioner in Crl.OP.No.25775/2011 25776/11, 25778/11, 25780/11, 25781/11 (Amended as per order of this Court dt.07.12.11 in MP3/11 in OP.25775/2011)

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Govt. of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Factories, Thiruvottriyur. ... Respondent in all Crl.Ops

¶12

Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.25774 of 2011:

¶13

Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the complaint including the order taking cognizance dated 13.06.2011 and all consequential proceedings on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Ponneri in STC No.880 of 2011, 895/2011, 898/2011, 894/2011, 899/2011, 892/2011, 907/2011, 900/2011 Respectively

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.A.L.Somayaji Senior Advocate for M/s.S.Ramasubramaniam Associates

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

¶18

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the Executive Director of Bharath Heavy Electricals Limited/ a Government of India Undertaking within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act and the petitioner is over all incharge of the Power Sector, Southern Region. The respondent is the Inspector of Factories, Thiruvottriyur. The respondent has lodged various complaints against the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri, alleging that during the inspection conducted by him in various sites, it was found that the petitioner has violated The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 and The Tamil Nadu Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006. The complaints were taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri, in S.T.C.Nos.880, 895, 898, 894, 899, 892, 907 and 900 of 2011 respectively. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed these criminal original petitions.

¶20

2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that all the criminal original petitions are filed by the former Executive Director of the Bharath Heavy Electricals Limited. He would further submit that the issue is no longer res integra and the issue has already been settled on the ground that without impleading the Company as party filing complaint against the Executive Director of the Company will vitiate the proceedings.

¶21

3.In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 21.09.2007 made in Criminal Appeal No.1284 of 2007 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.853 of 2007] in the case of C.P.Jain and others Vs. Inspector, Building and another.

¶22

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not dispute the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶23

5.The very same issue came up before this Court and this Court in the decision reported in MANI/TN/2099/2019 (M.S.Srinivasan Vs. Deputy Director (BOCW), Kanchipuram, Industrial Safety and Health), allowed the said criminal original petition.

¶24

6.In view of the categorical decision, these criminal original petitions are allowed and the proceedings in S.T.C.Nos.880, 895, 898, 894, 899, 892, 907 and 900 of 2011

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

¶27

respectively, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri, are hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-III) Sub Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

pri

1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Ponneri.
2.The Inspector of Factories,
Thiruvottriyur.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104.
Crl.O.P.Nos.25774 to 25781 of 2011
JP(CO)
CB(12/03/2020)

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

P.R.Sriram v. the Inspector of Factories

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.R.Sriram v. the Inspector of Factories

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Gnanasambandham Vs C.Sasi

C.R.Sivasubramanian Vs the Inspector of Police

Maragadarsi Chit Fund Ltd. Vs T.Kesavan

K.Amutha Priya Vs Susheela Kumar

M.Premsakthi Vs State by

P.Prabhu Vs the Inspector of Police