Allowed

M/S Karam Chand Thapar Alias Bros (Coal Sales)Ltd. v. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment

Uttarakhand HC7 Sept 2021C482/1154/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed criminal proceedings for labour violations. The Court held that the complaint was barred under Section 27 of the Contract Labour Act because it was filed beyond the three-month limitation period from the date the offence came to the inspector's knowledge. Due to the lack of jurisdiction caused by this limitat

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of criminal case no.960 of 2010 pending before the Court below are quashed, and all pending applications are disposed of.

SL. No	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
			C-482 No.1154 of 2012 Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Asstt. S.G. along with Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India. This criminal misc. application has been filed U/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceedings of criminal case no.960 of 2010 (Labour Inspector Vs. M/s Karam Chand Thapar & another) pending before C.J.M. Tehri Garhwal U/s 23 & 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that as per the complaint, Inspection was made on 02.06.2010 at the premises of the applicants while the complainant filed the impugned complaint on 17.09.2010, which is barred as per Section 27 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, which reads as under:- *“27.Limitation* of *prosecutions*—No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act unless the complaint thereof is made within three months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an inspector: Provided that where the offence consists of disobeying a written order made by an inspector, complaint thereof may be made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed.” To verify this fact a direction was issued to the C.J.M. Tehri Garhwal on 17.12.2020 to clarify the facts as to when the impugned complaint was actually filed before the Court. As per direction of this Court, the concerned C.J.M. filed its replyon 21.12.2020,which is on

SL.
No

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

C-482 No.1154 of 2012
Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Asstt. S.G.
along with Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, learned Standing
Counsel for the Union of India.
This criminal misc. application has been filed
U/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceedings
of criminal case no.960 of 2010 (Labour Inspector
Vs. M/s Karam Chand Thapar & another) pending
before C.J.M. Tehri Garhwal U/s 23 & 24 of the
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,
1970.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the
applicants that as per the complaint, Inspection was
made on 02.06.2010 at the premises of the
applicants while the complainant filed the impugned
complaint on 17.09.2010, which is barred as per
Section 27 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970, which reads as under:-
“27.Limitation
of
prosecutions—No
court shall take cognizance of an offence
punishable under this Act unless the complaint
thereof is made within three months from the
date on which the alleged commission of the
offence came to the knowledge of an inspector:
Provided that where the offence consists
of disobeying a written order made by an
inspector, complaint thereof may be made within
six months of the date on which the offence is
alleged to have been committed.”
To verify this fact a direction was issued to
the C.J.M. Tehri Garhwal on 17.12.2020 to clarify
the facts as to when the impugned complaint was
actually filed before the Court.
As per direction of this Court, the concerned
C.J.M. filed its replyon 21.12.2020,which is on

record. As per the report, the above complaint moved in the Court of C.J.M. Tehri Garhwal 17.09.2010, which shows that the impug complaint was instituted after three months from date on which it came to the knowledge complainant on 02.06.2010 when the Inspec was conducted by the complainant also. Since, the complaint is barred by Section of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Aboliti Act, 1970, hence, the concerned Court had	was on ned the of tion 27 on) no
jurisdiction to take cognizance against applicants. In view of the above observation, the pre criminal misc. application filed U/s 482 Cr.P.C liable to be allowed and the same is allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings of criminal c no.960 of 2010 (Labour Inspector Vs. M/s Ka Chand Thapar & Another) pending before concerned Court below is hereby quashed. All pending applications also stand dispo of. (R.C. Khulbe, J.) 07.09.2021 Sukhbant	the sent . is ase ram the sed

record.
As per the report, the above complaint
moved in the Court of C.J.M. Tehri Garhwal
17.09.2010, which shows that the impug
complaint was instituted after three months from
date on which it came to the knowledge
complainant on 02.06.2010 when the Inspec
was conducted by the complainant also.
Since, the complaint is barred by Section
of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Aboliti
Act, 1970, hence, the concerned Court had

was
on
ned
the
of
tion
27
on)
no

jurisdiction
to
take
cognizance
against
applicants.
In view of the above observation, the pre
criminal misc. application filed U/s 482 Cr.P.C
liable to be allowed and the same is allowed.
Accordingly, the proceedings of criminal c
no.960 of 2010 (Labour Inspector Vs. M/s Ka
Chand Thapar & Another) pending before
concerned Court below is hereby quashed.
All pending applications also stand dispo
of.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
07.09.2021
Sukhbant

the
sent
. is
ase
ram
the
sed

M/S Karam Chand Thapar Alias Bros (Coal Sales)Ltd. v. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Karam Chand Thapar Alias Bros (Coal Sales)Ltd. v. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deshraj Saini Vs State of Uttarakhand

Navin Sajwan Alias Sonu Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajiv Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Yashpal Agarwal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Deepak Prasad Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ashwani Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand