HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRL.P.No.339 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed to quash proceedings in S.T.C.No.268 of 2007 filed under Section 24 of the Contract Labour Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, on the basis of a complaint given by the 1st respondent herein (the complainant in S.T.C. No.268 of 2007) (for short ‘the complainant’) against the petitioner herein (accused in S.T.C. No.268 of 2007) (for short ‘the accused’), on the file of the Court of First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa. 2. Originally, the 1st respondent-complainant filed a complaint with the following averments/allegations: The accused is the Principal Employer to the Construction of Staff Quarters & Other Civil Works for the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kadapa Division, and he is responsible for the compliance of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (for brevity ‘the Act’) and Rules made there under. He started relevant work covered under the Act and Rules. On 18-01-2006, the complainant inspected and verified his contract works and observed the following contraventions among other things on the part of the accused: 1. The accused had failed to submit the notice of commencement/completion to the Inspector in Form VI B in respect of 14 contracts engaged by him under Rule 81 (3) of the Act, and 2. The accused had also failed to maintain the register of contractors in Form XII property under Section 29 (1) Rule 74 of the Act. Accordingly, the complainant made an inspection report and sent a copy of the same to the accused and requested the accused to rectify the irregularities mentioned in the report. The accused had submitted his compliance report. Since he was not satisfied with the said compliance, he filed the present complaint. 3. Therefore, the point for consideration is whether the accused is entitled to quash the proceedings. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the accused sent a letter to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, dated 04-02-2006, to the effect that he complied with the irregularities, and he did not commit any offence contravening any of the provisions of the Act and further the accused did the said works in the official capacity and not in the individual capacity and hence the complaint was filed to harass him only and hence, the case is not tenable. 5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the Central Government, appearing for the complainant, has contended that as per the inspection report, the said contraventions were clearly found in the establishment of the accused at the time of the inspection of it by the complainant and further, the accused sent a letter dated 04- 02-2006 about the rectification of the omissions which is not true and which is not suffice and further by virtue of Section 2 (g) of the Act, the principal employer of the office/department of the Government is liable for punishment. 6. There are clear allegations to the effect that the accused involved in the said contraventions. Admittedly, the accused sent the letter to the effect that he complied with the omissions, but there is a question about the true of it. Further, under the provisions of Section 2 (g) of the Act, the principal employer of the office/department of the Government is liable for punishment for such violations of the Act. Further, the case requires to be tried and disposed of on the basis of the evidence to be recorded. Hence, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________________ 23rd December 2011 G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J kvr