Allowed

The Deputy Commissioner v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Sept 2024CRLP/1413/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed to quash prosecution proceedings under the Contract Labour Act. The High Court held that since the accused was a public servant acting in official duty, sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. Reliance on the incomplete Sanction Order rendered the complaint bad in law, leading to quashing.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Proceedings S.T.C. No. 1413 of 2020 against the petitioner are quashed.

The Deputy Commissioner Vs State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e9 ]

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY,^{THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL}

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION^{NOi 1413 oF 2020}

¶8

Between:

¶9

TheDeputyCommissioner,KendriyaVidyalaya.San-gathan'SegionalOffice' piclet, SLcinAeraUaO - SOO 009. Repie.e.,ied 6y^{Shri P.V. Sai RangaRao,}

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

l.stateofTelangana,Rep.byitsPublicProsecutor'HighCourtatHyderabad'

¶13

2.LabourEnforcementofficer(Central),Governmentoflndia-,.MinistryofLabour and Employment,^{bFrce-oi1neo6puty- c^hief Labour commissioner,ATI} CamprJi Siivam^{Road, Secunderabad- 500 007}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under^{Section 482 of Cr'P C , prayingthat in the.circumstances} statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmay o"pteas"otoquashtheproceedingsinSTCNo.6of201gonthefileofXllAddl. CniLifr,fltropolitan^{Magisirate First-Classat Nampallyfiled u/s 24 oI the Contract} i"uori (R ind A)^{Act r/w the rules thereinas it is a case of abuseof process,} [f.g"i ditnort^{jurisdiction and resultingin miscarriageof justice'}

¶16

l.A. NO:1OF^2O2O

¶17

Petition under^{Section 482 of Cr'P C , prayingthat in the} .circumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourt.may 6"'pL.."O-to^{stay alt frrtne, p'oceedings including the appearanceof the} p"tiii"""il"""rsed in STC-N.^{O'ot 2019 Jn the file of the Xll AdditionalChief} Giiopolitin Magistrate^{First Classat Nampally pending disposalof the above} criminal^petition.

¶18

t.A. NO: 1oF²⁰²⁴

¶19

PetitionunderSection4B2ofCr.P-C.,prayingthatinthecircumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmay u" prl"."o to extend^{the interim order dated26tO2l2O2Oin l.A.No 1 of 2020in}

¶20

,CRLP.No. 1413 of 2020 and extending the same by order dated 510612024, pending disposal of the above Criminal^{Petitionin the interestof justice'}

¶21

This Petition coming on^{for hearing,upon perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of criminal^{Petition and uponhearingthe argumentsof sri AJAY} KUMAR KULKARNI, Advocate^{for the Petitioner and the AssistantPublic} Prosecutor for the State of^{Telangana on behalfof the Respondent No.1 and of} Sri Arvind Kumar, Central^{GovernmentStanding Counselfor the RespondentNo.} 2.

¶22

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶23

5Er=ffiT7-€itrqrr .^-:..jiff -:.:::'= :..2,' .: . :^r.ell--' :'-,-?7 J' /'

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶25

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1413 OF 2O2O

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in S.T.C.No.l4l3 of 2O2O on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate First Class, Nampally, (for short, 'the trial Court'), has been lrled under Section 24 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, l97O for the breach of Section 7 read with Section 9, Rules 81(1), 81(3) ,82{Il and 74 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 197 I

¶28

Heard Mr.Ajay Kumar Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.B.Hemanth Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr.Arrrind Kumar, leamed Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as the_v arrayed before the trial Court.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the principal employer and he has been executing housekeeping, security, pantry services and allied works, at Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan, Secunderabad, b_v employing 20

¶30

¶31

or more contract labourers. While being so, on 06.03.2019, the Labo ur Enforcement Officer (Central), Hyderabad, inspected the said establishmcnt under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, l97O atd Central Rules, 1971, and observed the following offences:-

¶32

Sl.No.	BreachofRule/ Section		Offence
I	Section7read withSection9	The mor 06.O pro obt Re	Principal Employerhasemplo ethan20contractlabour 3.2019wereemployeddur ceeding12 monthsrvith aining valid certiflcate stration.	yed on ing out o[
2	Rule81(1)(i)	The displ infor	PrincipalEmployerhasfailed aythenotice boardwithfollow mation:	to ing
		a)	The Rates Wages Hindi/ English/LocalLanguage.	in
		b)	The Hours of Work Hindi/English/ LocalLanguage.	in
		c) d) e) f)	The Date ofPaymen Hindi/English/LocalLanguage. The Wage Period Hindi/English/LocalLanguage. TheNamesandaddressof inspectors havingjurisdiction Hindi. Dateof payment ofunpaidrva in Hindi/English/Loc Language.	in in the in ges al
3	Rule81(3)	The intim ofwo	PrincipalEmployerhasfailed atetheNoticeofcommencem rkinFormVII totheIns cctor.	to ent
4	Rule82(l)	The subm	PrincipalEmployerhasfailed it unified Annual ReturninFo	to rm

¶33

¶34

	XIVfo.theYear²⁰¹⁸ suvidhaweb ^ortal.	^{through shram}
Rule 74 5	ThePrinciPal^EmPloYer maintainRegister^of Form XII.	hasfailed Contractor to in

¶35

Respondent No.2^{had observed the aforesaid offences and} incorporating the^{same in the inspection report-cum-Show Cause} Notice No.34 I lO|2OL}-LEO/KV/HYD,^{dated 06'03'2019 and the} inspection report^{was duly sent to the petitioner' Itwas} submitted by^{respondent No'2 that since the petitioner has not} submitted any^{reply, the petitioneris liable for prosecution} under Section24^{of the said Act'}

¶36

In the above said^{backdrop,the respondent had filed STC} No.6of2olg,onthefrleofthetrialCourt,toprosecutethe petitioner herein,^{underSectio n 24 of the Act, punishable with} the imprisonment^{for a term which may extend to 3 monthsor} vvith fine which^{may extend to Rs' 1,OOO/- or u'ith both'}

¶37

Assailing STC No.6^{of 2019, the petitionerhad liled this} Criminat Petition^{praying for the relief as stated supra'}

¶38

The learned counsel^{for the petitioner submittedthat as per}

¶39

the Education^{Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas'each Kendriya} Vidyalaya is a^{separate establishmentwhichcanbe allon'ed to}

¶40

¶41

engage the services of Private agencies/Contract Workers and such contract agreement shall be between the concerned Kendriya Vidl,alaya and the agency and that the petitioner establishment is engaging the services of only five workmen i.e., three security guards and two housekeeping, hence, the Act does not apply. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent is a Labour Enforcement Ofl-rcer and lodged a complaint without complying u,ith the specific instructions of the sanctioning authority vide Sanction Order dated 29.05.2019 i.e., to collect the evidence of engaging 20 or more contract workmen in the petitioner establishment, hastily filed the subject complaint abusing the process of lar.r, '"r,hich would result in miscarriage of justice. There lbre, pra_vs for quashment of the subject proceed ings

¶42

Pcr Conlra, the learned Central Government Standing Counset appeziring tor the respondents submitted that respondent No.2 is the competent person to lodge a complaint against the petitioncr. Further, as per Section 24 of the Act, if any person contravcnes an-r' o[ the provisions of this Act or of an-v Rules made thcreunder for which no other penalty is elseu,here provided, lre shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term

¶43

¶44

,:a:

¶45

which may extend^{to three months or with fine whichmay extend} to Rs. 1O0O/^- or^{with both. Therefore, the petitioner isthe} establishment^{and required sanctionfor prosecuting the principle} employer therein^{had already been obtained vide Sanction order} dated 29.05.20^{19, as such the petitioneris bound by the rule of} law and cannot^{attempt to take shelterunder any plea stating} that the respondent^{is not competent to prosecute the petitioner'}

¶46

g. The respondent^{lodged the complaintunder Section 24 ol} the Act for the^{offencespunishableunderSectionI 2 ( I ) of the} same Act.^{The petitioner is the sole accused in the complaint'The} crux of the allegation^{is that the petitioner has employed more} than2ocontractlabourwithoutobtainingvalidcertilicateof registration; failed^{tointimateabout the commencement/} completion of contract^{work to the Inspectorto Form VII; failed to} display an Abstract^{of the Act and Rules madethereunderin the} Form approved^{by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)'in} Hindi/English/Local^{at the workspot;failed to submit unified} Annual Return^{in Form XIV for the year 2018 throughShram} Suvidha^{Webportal;and failed to maintainRegistero[ Contractor} in Form XII. It^{is also seen that infringementsfound on the} inspection of respondent^{No.2 and issued show cause notice to}

¶47

¶48

the petitioner. After rcceipt of the same, the petitioner did not reply and hcnce the complaint

¶49

The learned counsel for the petitioner raised two grounds. The hrst onc is that as per Education Code, the petitioner establishment was allowed to engage the services of Private Agencies/ Contract workers ald such agreement shall be between the concerned establishment and the agency. The second point raised by the petitioner is that the complaint was frled without complying with the specific instructions of the sanctioning authority vide Sanction Order dated 29.05.2019.

¶50

I 1. Contravention of provisions regarding employment of contract labour.-Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or of any rules madc thereunder prohibiting, restricting or regulating thc emplo,yment of contract labour, or contravenes any condition of a licence granted under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term u,hich ma1, extend to three months, or with fine r.vhich may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both, and in the case o[ a continuing contravention with an additional fine u hich may extend to one hundred rupees for every day during r'r'hich such contra'ention continues after conviction for the first such contravention

¶51

¶52

The provision says that except the act done by the person shall be punishable. It does not say about the sanction to be obtained for prosecuting a public servant without recourse to Section 197 Cr.P.C. Thus, it is clear that neither Section 23 nor any other provision of the Contract Labourer (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 is explicitly or implicitly excluding portion of the Section 797 Cr.P.C. As repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, unless there is a specific provision excluding the applicability of any of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the said provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure should be followed. Therefore, to prosecute a person covered under Section 197 Cr.P.C., if the offence alleged to have been committed under the Contract Labourer (Regulation and Abolition) Act, l97O is in discharge of oflicial duty, the sanction is mandatory and in the absence of such sanction no Court shall take cognizance of the offence.

¶53

In the case on hand, the petitioner while in discharge of his ofhcial duty alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences and it falls under Sectio n 197 Cr. P.C and therefore before taking cognizance sanction from the Centra] Government should have been obtained by respondent No.2. Therefore u,ithout anr.

¶54

¶55

sanction the learned Magistrate ought not to^{have take} cognizance of the impugned complaint. In this^{regard, respondent} No.2 had obtained sanction vide Sanction Order^dated 29.O5.2019. AS contemplated under law and the instructions therein are extracted hereunder:

¶56

"The following may please be noted^while liling the complaint:

¶57

Collect evidence regarding engagement of 20 or more workers as on the datc of inspection and during the prece ding I 2 months from the PEs Office at once.

¶58

lmplead another partner/ director/ secretary of the Company as per Section 25 o[ the Act on issuing corrigendu m to the [r.

¶59

Draft complaint properly indicating the past history of the contrac tor/ cm ployer in brief and pray the Court for hc:ivy fine of pcnalty.

¶60

Ensure th.rt the Inspcction Report is served on the Employer/Contractor bcforc filing the charge sheet in thc Court.

¶61

Submit PP/lnspection Notc immeciiately."

¶62

In the instant case, the complainant in the case who was working under a central enactment could not validly prefer a complaint lor the violations alleged. Having considered the respective submissior-rs, this Court lind force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the charge sheet

¶63

¶64

¶65

before the trial Court^{was filed withoutproper complianceof} instructions of the^{said sanction order is well founded. Hence, the} charge sheet which^{has beenfited by an officia,l thereof is bad in} law. Therefore, this court^{is of the view that the petition is liable} to be allowed.

¶66

In view of^{the abovediscussion,the complaint lodged by the} respondent is not^{maintainable as against the petitioner'} Accordingly this criminal^{petition is allowedand the proceedings} inS.T.C.No.1413of2o2oonthefileoftheXIIAdditionalChief

¶67

Metropolitan^{MagistrateFirst Class, Nampally,a-re quashed'}

¶68

Miscellaneous Petitions,^{pending if any, shall standclosed'}

¶69

Sd/- T. TIRUMALA^DEVI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

/TTRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICE^R

l.TheXllAdditionalChief,MetropolitanMagistrateFirstClassat\arnpally' i. t;;eb;I;'ii.,"^{Frori" i'.oi"",_[o,,Hish iourtfor the State of Telansana at} Hvderabad^(OUT)

¶74

1. 6i';"aCi; bnr'ALnv^{KUMAR KULKARNI,Advocate IoPL'cl} 4. one CC^{to SRl. K ARVINE'kUiinAceniiit Governm6nt Standing Counsel'} High Court of^Telangana [OPUC]

¶75

Two CD^CoPies

HIGH COURT EW,J DATED: 05109t2024

¶81

ORDER CRLP.No.1413 ot 2020

¶82

:i
t i ,.Ci
a
J
'/ 2u25 c
1 rL
.)
.! .i
.J
JE.spri
-;r'-

¶83

ALLOWING THE CRL.PETITION

¶84

)do

The Deputy Commissioner v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Deputy Commissioner v. State of Telangana

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

Smt. Potukuchi Pushya Vs The State of the Telangana

Parle Agro Vs Prl.Secy., Home Dept. Hyd., and Another

Mokalla Ravi and 4 Others Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Dasari Sudhakar Vs Dasari Prasanna Kumari

J.S.R. Durga Prasad Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Janumpally Sudharshan Vs The State of Telangana