HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3690 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash proceedings in S.T.C.No.142 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Manthani, registered for offences punishable under Section 24 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 for violating rules 74 and 81(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. 2. Whereas the Petitioner is A.2, the first respondent is the de- facto complainant in the S.T.C. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the S.T.C. 3. The allegations leveled against the accused by the prosecution are that the accused being the Principal Employer of M/s.Singareni Colleries Co.,Ltd., OC-II, Ramagundam-III area, Godavarikhani failed to maintain Register of Contractor in Form-XII and also failed to display notice of rates of wages, hours of work, wage periods, date of payment of wages, names and address of inspector having jurisdiction, date of payment of unpaid wages and place of payment of wages in English, Telugu and Hindi; and the accused thus contravened the provisions of Rule 74 and 81(1) (i) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 (for short the Rules). 4. It is contended on behalf of A.2 that whereas it is alleged that he is the principal employer of M/s.Singareni Colleries Co.Ltd., as defined under Section 2(g) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short ‘the Act’) and he failed to maintain relevant registers as provided under Rule 74 and 81(1)(i) of the Rules being the principal employer of the said establishment in-fact he was not the principal employer of that establishment and therefore the proceedings are to be quashed so far as he is concerned. 5. The point for consideration is :Whether sufficient grounds are there in order to quash the proceedings? 6. POINT:- Rule 74 of the Rules provides: “Register of contractors: Every principal employer shall maintain in respect of each registered establishment a register of contractors in Form XII.” 81(1)(i) of the Rules provides:- “Notices showing the rates of wages, hours of work, wage periods, date of payment of wages, names and addresses of the Inspectors having jurisdiction, and date of payment of unpaid wages, shall be displayed in English and in Hindi and in the local language understood by the majority of the workers in conspicuous places at the establishment and the work- site by the principal employer or the contractor, as the case may be.” 7. It is conceded by the Additional Public Prosecutor that in-fact A.2 has not been the principal employer of the establishment and hence his (A.2) claim can be upheld. 8. In order to prosecute A.2 for the alleged offences, there should be clear material to the effect that he had to maintain the said registers being the principal employer of the establishment. In view of the representation made on behalf of A.2 and also in view of the representation made by the learned A.P.P., it clearly appears that he was not the principal employer of the establishment at the relevant point of time. Further it is pertinent to note here that the additional general manager of the establishment is shown as A.1 in the case. There is no plea to quash the proceedings so far as A.1 is concerned. In order to fix the liability prima facie against A.2 for necessary prosecution, necessary material is to be filed whereas no such material is filed. Therefore prima facie no ground is made out to prosecute him for the alleged offences whereas in-fact what is conceded by the learned A.P.P. is sufficient to take a positive stand in favour of A.2 in the matter. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against A.2 in S.T.C.No.142 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani are quashed. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 02-09-2011. vjl