Judgment:
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.
1. In this Cr.M.P the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 11.4.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.L.A. Case No. 154/2000 as well as the entire criminal proceeding of the said case. By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences against the petitioner under Sections 23/24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 [hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'].
2. The petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (B.C.C.L) having its Head Quarters at Dhanbad. He has been sought to be prosecuted for violation of certain rules framed under the said Act. According to the complaint, the following irregularities were found: (i) Notices showing the rates of wages, hours of the work, wage periods, date of payment of wages, names and address of Inspector having jurisdiction and date of payment of unpaid wages have not been displayed in English and Hindi and in the local language understood by the majority of the workers in conspicuous places at the establishment. (ii) The changes and some of the particulars specified in the certificate of registration within the prescribed time were not intimated. (iii) The register of contractors has not been maintained in proper form and (iv) The return in the appropriate form etc has not been submitted.
3. Learned Court below on the basis of said allegations took cognizance of the offences under Sections 23/24 of the said Act against three persons including the petitioner who is the Managing Director of the B.C.C.L.
4. The impugned order taking cognizance has been challenged by the petitioner mainly on the following grounds: (i) He is the Managing Director of the B.C.C.L under which there are hundreds of such collieries (ii) The irregularity, if any, as alleged in the complaint, is at the particular colliery and the petitioner is not expected to visit each and every colliery every day, it is not also possible.
5. 'Principal Employer' in the case of a mine has been defined under Section 2(g) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 as thus:
2(g) 'Principal employer' means ..
(iii) In a mine, the owner or agent of the mine and where a person has been named as the manager of the mine, the person so named,
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being the Managing Director of the B.C.C.L does not come within the ambit of either the owner or the agent or the Manager of that particular mine. The prosecution against the petitioner is, thus, wholly malicious and frivolous and is an abuse of the process of the Court.
7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India (O.P. No. 2), on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner being the Managing Director is over all In-charge of the colliery falling within him and that the words 'manager of the mine' therefore include the Managing Director of the B.C.C.L. He, being responsible for supervision and control of all the collieries falling within his jurisdiction, is liable for prosecution. The order taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 23/24 of the said Act against the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal or an abuse of the process of the Court and the impugned order taking cognizance does not warrant any intervention of this Court.
8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered their submissions as also the relevant aspects of the facts and law. The petitioner along with other two persons, who are the Project Officer and the Chief General Manager of the B.C.C.L, has been sought to be prosecuted and cognizance has been taken of the offences under Sections 23/24 of the said Act against them.
9. Sections 23 & 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 are reproduced herein below.
23. Contravention of provisions regarding employment of contract labour- Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or of any rules made thereunder prohibiting, restricting or regulating the employment of contract labour, or contravenes any condition of a licence granted under this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both, and in the case of a continuing contravention with an additional fine which may extend to one hundred rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention.
24. Other offences- If any person contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or of any rules made thereunder for which no other penalty is elsewhere provided, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
10. On plain reading of the above Sections 23 and 24, it is clear that the person sought to be prosecuted must have allegation of contravention of the provisions of any rule made thereunder prohibiting, restricting or regulating the employment of contract labour, or any condition of license granted under the Act, or any of the provisions of the Act or any rule made thereunder for which no other penalty is elsewhere provided.
11. On perusal of the complaint, it appears that there is no particular allegation against the petitioner of contravening any of the provisions of the said Act, rule or condition of license. Only vague statement has been made that all the accused persons including the petitioner are also responsible for the alleged irregularities. The petitioner being the Managing Director of the Company there are hundreds of collieries under him and for each colliery there are Managers and other authorities to control the affairs of the particular colliery.
12. Penal provision has to be strictly construed. A person cannot be criminally prosecuted on vague and unspecific allegations. The Managing Director of the B.C.C.L cannot be held directly responsible for the alleged contravention of Act/Rule etc of a particular colliery if there is no clear allegation of the role of Managing Director of the B.C.C.L constituting penal offence. Even if certain words bring some persons within the fold of the person responsible for the overall superintendence and control, they cannot be prosecuted as the 'Principle Employer', if there is no direct allegation making out a case of contravention of any provision of the Act, Rule or condition of license in the capacity of owner, agent or Manager named for the particular mine.
13. Learned Magistrate without taking into consideration the said legal aspect and the canon of the criminal jurisprudence has taken cognizance of the said offences against the petitioner against whom there is no such allegation of contravention of any of the provisions of the said Act and the rules framed thereunder in the capacity of owner, agent or Manager of the mine. I, therefore, find no cogent material constituting the offences under Sections 23 and 24 of the said Act and sufficient ground for prosecuting the petitioner and supporting the impugned order.
14. The impugned order taking cognizance dated 11.4.2000 as well as the criminal prosecution against the petitioner are quashed. This Cr.M.P is allowed.