Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.30591/2015 (GM - RES)
CONNECTED WITH
WRIT PETITION No.30595/2015 (GM -RES)
BETWEEN
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD., 1ST FLOOR, PRESTIGE ALPHA, BARATANA AGRAHARA, HOSUR ROAD CPC, BENGALURU – 560 100. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SRI. B.B. SHETTY.
SRI. SWEER MALIK, PROGRAMME DIRECTOR, M/S. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD, PTI BUILDING, SANSAR MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001.
SRI Y. AMEER FAISAL, PROJECT MANAGER, 1ST FLOOR, PRESTIGE ALPHA, BARATANA AGRAHARA, HOSUR ROAD, CPC, BENGALURU – 560 100. ... PETITIONERS (COMMON) [BY SRI.S.N.MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING)]
2 AND
THE LABOUR ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER (CENTRAL),
‘SHRAMSADAN’, 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
2ND PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD,
YESHWANTHAPUR,
BENGALURU – 560 022.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE,
NO.48/1 AND 48/2,
BERATENA AGRAHARA,
BEGUR HOBLI, HOSUR ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 100. ... RESPONDENTS (COMMON)
[BY SRI.K.S.BHEEMAIAH, CGC FOR R1 (VIDEO CONFERENCING); SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE FOR R2)]
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO.1640/2015 AND 1639/2015 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ANNEXURE – G TO THIS PETITION FILED BY THE R-1 BEFORE THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT – III, BANGALORE AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3 ORDER
The petitioners – Tata Consultancy Services Limited and its employees are before this Court calling in question proceedings instituted by respondent No.1 – the Labour Enforcement Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘Inspector’ for short) in C.C.Nos.1639/2015 and 1640/2015 alleging violation of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’ for short).
Heard learned Senior counsel, Sri. S.N. Murthy appearing for Sri. Somashekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. K. S. Bheemaiah, learned CGC appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. K.V. Aravind, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.
The issue in these petitions are with regard to whether the prosecution could be initiated beyond
4 the period of limitation as is prescribed under Section 27 of the said Act.
Section 27 of the said Act, reads as follows: “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.”
It is on the bedrock of the aforesaid provision, the case at hand requires consideration. An inspection is carried out on the premises of the petitioners on 12.09.2014 by the Inspector under the said Act. Certain lacuna were noticed and an Inspection
5 Report is also placed at the hands of the petitioners on the very same date by the Inspector. The irregularities are also indicated in the Inspection Report on that very date.
To comply with the irregularities or lacuna that were noticed by the Inspector in terms of the Inspection Report, the petitioners gave a representation on 04.11.2014 to the Inspector seeking 15 days time to furnish the compliance report and on 06.11.2014, the communication was also sent to the Commissioner of Income Tax seeking certain information.
The representation given by the petitioners to the Inspector was not taken further, but prosecution is initiated by registering a complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable under Section 24 of the said Act.
6 8. It is germane to notice the complaint as the entire issue revolves around the narration in the complaint. “COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 200 Cr.P.C. FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISAHBLE UNDER SECTION 24 OF CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION AND ABOLITION) ACT, 1970. MAYIT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR: 1. OFFENCE: 1. BREACH OF RULE 81(l)(i): Non display of Notice showing the Rates of Wages Hours of work, Date of payment, Wage Period, Name & Address of the Inspector, Date of payment of unpaid wages in English, Hindi and Kannada.
BREACH OF RULE 79: Non display of abstract of the Act and Rules in the form approved by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi in English, Hindi and in Kannada.
BREACH OF RULE 71: Non display of Notice showing Wage period and the place and time of disbursement of wages at the place of work and its copies not sent to the
7 Principal Employer under acknowledgement.
BREACH OF RULE 75: Non maintenance of Register of Persons employed at the workspot
BREACH OF RULE 78(1)(a)(i) Non maintenance of Muster Roll & Register of Wages.
BREACH OF RULE 78(1)(a)(ii) Non maintenance of Register of Deductions, Advances & Fines.
BREACH OF RULE 78(1)(a)(iii) Non maintenance of Register of Overtime.
BREACH OF Rule 78(1)(b) Non issue of Wage slip in Form XIX to workmen at least a day prior to the disbursement of wages.
BREACH OF RULE 76(i): Non issue of employment car in Form XV to each worker within three days of his employment:
DATE OF OFFENCE: 12/9/2014
8 3. PLACE OF OFFENCE: Development, Testing and maintenance of portal of CPC, Income Tax at Bangalore.
PENAL PROVISION: Each of the above mentioned breaches are punishable under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 which provides penalty up to Rupees ONE THOUSAND FOR EACH OF THE OFFENCES, or imprisonment for a period which may extend up to three months or with BOTH.
FACTS OF THE CASE: THAT the Accused were Contractor engaged in Development, Testing and maintenance of portal of CPC, Income Tax at Bangalore. Thus, the Accused is a ‘CONTRACTOR’ as defined in Section 2(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970.
That he Accused were having thus contravened the provisions of the above Act and Rules at the aforesaid work-spot within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court and has rendered himself liable for prosecution under Section 24 of the said Act.
9 THAT Shri. G.V. Ramadurga Prasad, Labour Enforcement Officer(Central), Bangalore inspected the above work of the Accused on 27/11/2014 at 1200 hours under the aid Act and Rules. During the course of inspection, the observed that the above contraventions amongst others: That the said offences under the above Act and Rules as observed were incorporated in the Inspection Report-Cum-Show Cause Notice No.230/2414-C7 (Read with 34(109)/14-C7) dated 12/9/2014 and was sent by registered post. The accused was requested to rectify the said irregularities and also to show cause as to why legal action should not be taken against him for the existence of the irregularities. The Accused were sent a reply vide his letter dated 4/11/2014 which was found not satisfactory. Hence, this complaint.
AUTHORITY TO FILE COMPLAINT: THAT Shri. R.S. Sampath Kumar, Bangalore who is also Complainant is the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Bangalore, and has been appointed as an ‘INSPECTOR’
10 under Section 28 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 vide Gazette Notification No.S.O.3451 dated 30-11-1987 of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, having jurisdiction in the State of Karnataka.
TIME LIMITATION: The Complaint is not within the time limit of three months from the date of 12/9/2014, on which date the offences came to the knowledge of the Inspector as prescribed under Section 27 of CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION & ABOLITION) ACT, 1970.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS: The following documents relied upon to prove the guilt of the Accused are submitted along with this complaint: 1. Inspection Note prepared at the work spot dated 12/9/2014. 2. Inspection Report-cum- Show Cause Notice No.230/2014 C7 (34/109/2014 C7) dated 12/09/2014.
11 3. Letter dated 4/11/2014.”
(emphasis supplied)
With regard to the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 27 of the said Act, the Inspector, while registering a complaint admits that the complaint is not registered within the time limit of three months from the date of the offence coming to his knowledge, which is 12.09.2014. It is on this ground the present petitions are filed that the complaint being registered under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure was itself barred by the limitation and further, proceedings taken up would be without jurisdiction.
Learned Senior counsel, Sri. S.N. Murthy would submit that the admission on the part of the Inspector, who registers the complaint, is itself enough for the proceedings instituted to lose its legs to stand as
12 admittedly it is beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 27 of the said Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would on the other hand contend that it is mere a typographical error, it cannot be said that it is filed beyond the period of limitation and would further submit that the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the notice issued to them for the offences punishable under the said Act.
Insofar as the first contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents with regard to the complaint being a typographical error is concerned, this contention is belied by the very fact that the complaint is registered in the month of February, 2015 for an offence that came to the knowledge of the Inspector admittedly on 12.09.2014. The period of limitation that is prescribed under Section 27 of the said Act opens with a non-obstante clause that no Court
13 shall take cognizance for an offence punishable under the said Act, unless a complaint thereof is made of within three months from the date of the offence alleged. The proviso to Section 27 of the said Act extends the period of limitation for six months, where an order is issued against the accused, who would disobey them. The appeal remedy that the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contend would be only, when an order is passed and that being disobeyed by the accused, the complaint thereof could be made within six months from the date of such offence alleged to have been committed.
Admittedly in the case at hand, there is no order passed against the petitioners by the respondents to even contend that the proviso would become applicable and the period of six months would operate from 12.09.2014.
14 14. Insofar as the appeal remedy is concerned, no order is passed directing that the petitioners are guilty of offences under the said Act. The remedy of appeal that the learned counsel would contend is under Section 15 of the said Act, which reads as follows: 15. Appeal.- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made under section 7, section 8, section 12 or section 14 may, within thirty days from the date on which the order is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to an appellate officer who shall be a person nominated in this behalf by the appropriate Government:
Provided that the appellate officer may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
(2) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the appellate officer shall, after giving the appellant an opportunity of
15 being heard dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible.”
Section 15 of the said Act mandates, if a person is aggrieved against an order made alleging violation of Sections 7, 8, 12 or14 may, within thirty days prefer an appeal. It would have been a circumstance for the learned counsel appearing for the respondents to contend only if an order is passed against the petitioners for such violation.
In the case at hand, there is not even an order passed against the petitioners much less an order alleging offences as aforesaid. Therefore, the ground urged in this regard by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is to be rejected.
The complaint admittedly being beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under the said Act, would lose its legs to stand and the prosecution being continued on the said complaint, would result in
16 permitting a prosecution to be continued without jurisdiction and would result in miscarriage of justice.
For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. Writ petitions are allowed.
ii. The proceedings in criminal complaint
Nos.1639/2015 and 1640/2015 pending
before the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic
Court– III, Bangalore stands quashed.
iii. The petitioners shall be entitled to all
consequential benefits from the quashing of
the impugned proceedings.
Sd/- JUDGE
SJK