CRM No.M-36178 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-36178 of 2010 Date of Decision : 13.12.2011 G4S Security Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. and another ...Petitioners Versus State through Labour Enforcement Officer (C) ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present :Mr. D.S.Narula, Senior Advocate, with Mr. R.S.Madan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Indresh Goel, Standing Counsel for Union of India. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) This petition under Sections 482 and 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') has been moved by the petitioners praying for quashing/setting aside of the complaint lodged by the respondent under Sections 23 and 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, against the petitioners in Case No.49/27.01.2007 and the summoning order dated 27.01.2010 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mohali (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Notice of the present petition was issued to the respondent and on the last date of hearing counsel had put in appearance on behalf of respondent. Today, counsel for the parties have admitted that similar petition between the same parties and on virtually the same grounds was came up for hearing before this Court in CRM No.M-44402 of 2005 titled as 'M/s Group 4 Securities Guarding (P) Ltd. and another Vs. State of Punjab, CRM No.M-36178 of 2010 -2- wherein this Court vide order dated 21.04.2010 had quashed the summoning order and granted an opportunity to the petitioner-Company to present its case before the Magistrate to consider whether the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, would be applicable or not. Counsel for the parties agreed that the present petition can be disposed of in the same terms. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the order dated 21.04.2010 passed by this Court in CRM No.M- 44402 of 2005 and I am of the view that the same order deserves to be passed in the present case as well. Relevant part of the said order reads as follows:- “It stands concluded that the summoning order need not reflect the detailed reasons but it ought to reflect application of mind. It cannot be passed in a mechanical manner. A perusal of the summoning order reveals that the same is not only cryptic but shows non application of mind. Merely two lines have been written “Complaint presented. It be registered. Accused be summoned.” Therefore, in view of this matter, summoning order, Annexure P4 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to apply its mind to the controversy involved. At this stage, Mr. Narula has submitted that in case a fresh summoning order is passed, petitioner will be constrained to challenge the same before an appropriate forum. This according to Mr. Narula will involve unnecessary litigation. It is submitted that petitioner-company is willing to assist the Magistrate to urge that the provisions of the Act are not applicable on the ground that petitioner has employed no employee on contract. It is submitted that in case an opportunity is afforded to the petitioners, they will show that the provisions of the Act are not applicable as all employees of the petitioner-company are permanent employees. In the present case the impugned complaint was filed on 5.7.2005. Summoning order was passed on 16.7.2005. This litigation is CRM No.M-36178 of 2010 -3- five years old. In these circumstances, it is directed that before passing the fresh summoning order, the Magistrate on filing of an application may afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. I have no doubt that to ensure the equity and fair play, the Magistrate while taking into consideration long pendency of the case may if so desire can also postpone issue of process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an enquiry to be made by any other officer of Central Labour Department within the meaning of Section 202 Cr.P.C. With the aforesaid observations, both the petitions are disposed of.” In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by quashing the summoning order dated 27.01.2010 passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Mohali (trial Court) (Annexure P-1) with a direction to the trial Court to apply its mind to the controversy involved, in the light of the observations made by this Court in its order dated 21.04.2010 in CRM No.M-44402 of 2005 reproduced above. Parties will have the same right as has been provided to them under the said order. 13.12.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) adhikari JUDGE