JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
(1) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings titled as Inspector Cla Vs. V.D. Sharma under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (R&A) Act 1970 and Rules made therein pending in the court of Shri Shahabuddin, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.
(2) The three complaints were filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma, Delhi and the petitioner has filed three separate petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Cr.M.(Ms) 2657/93, 2658/93 & 2659/93. All the aforesaid petitions are disposed of by this order. 3.The Labour Commissioner, Delhi Administration on inspection under Contract Labour (R&A) Act 1970 and Rules made therein found following irregularities and contraventions. The contraventions are set out as under: Nature of Contravention 1. That the application for amendment in the Registration as required under the Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970 and the Rules made under has not been filed so far in respect of your work by engaging contractors M/s. Anand Prakash, Banwari Lal, Khurana Mending Wks, Kurnar Mending Wks. etc. & Ors., K.L. Miglani & Girish Chand etc. 2. Register of contractors/records were not produced during the course of inspection in r/o workers employed in respect of above mentioned contractors.
(3) “NOTICES” showing rates of wages hours of work, date of payment etc. not found displayed at the above site in r/o above contractors & contract Labour.
Contractors Workmen Girish Chand 17 Podiar & Sons 7 Banwari Lal 7 Khurana . 7 Kumar 5 Miglani 210
(4) The aforesaid irregularities were brought to the notice of the petitioner for immediate action to rectify them and to report to the Inspecting Officer under Contract Labour Act, Delhi on 5th September, 1988. The petitioner without rectifying irregularities or contravention as pointed out in the letter dated 30th August, 1988 by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Delhi Administration rushed to this court for quashing the complaint.
(5) The petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioner is not the Principal Employer within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Contract Labour Act. Sub-Section (III) provides that in case of the factory, it is the owner or the occupier of the factory who is liable for observing the obligations under the Act.
(6) It is further submitted that it is the intention of the legislature exhibited in all labour legislations that a person must be nominated as an occupier to fasten liability in definite terms and that no uncertainty should prevail for fixing the liability in respect of violation and contraventions of the beneficial and social legislations providing protection to the labour.
(7) It is also submitted that it is not left to the whim and vagaries of the officials of the department to pick and choose any one for facing the prosecutions and fixing the liability. The averments of the complaints are vague and do not contain any averment for fixing the liability of the petitioner.
(8) The bare reading of annexure ‘A’ complaint dated 30th August, 1988 clearly points out the nature of contraventions and irregularities and therefore, to say that the averments of the complaint are vague, is wholly untenable and without foundation.
(9) The main averments of the complaints are clear and categoric that the registers of the contractors and records were not produced during the course of the inspection. Notice showing rates of wages, hours of work and date of payment were not found displayed at the above site. The petitioner was given time for rectifying the defects and irregularities. The petitioner instead of rectifying the aforesaid contraventions and irregularities chose to approach this court for quashing the complaint.
(10) These petitions being devoid of any merit are rejected. Interim orders granted by this court are accordingly vacated.