Gujarat High Court
Jayeshbhai Kantilal Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 7 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/30964/2016 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 30964 of 2016
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 30966 of 2016
==========================================================
JAYESHBHAI KANTILAL SHAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. VAIBHAI SHUKLA WITH SUDHIR NANAVAT FOR MS ANUJA S
NANAVATI(5229) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR, SOAHAM JOSHI ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 07/10/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. This common order governs the disposal of the captioned petitions as both contain similar facts and between the same parties. Criminal Misc. Application No. 30964 of 2016 is considered as a lead matter.
1.1 The brief facts of the case are as under :-
1.2 The Government Labour Officer and Inspector under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, Mr. D.M Chitnis filed criminal complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad against Arvind Ltd., and to Jayesh Shah his Whole Time Director for breach of Rule 81 (2), 18(3) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) (Gujarat) Rules 1972. The private complaint was Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 23:37:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/30964/2016 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined filed as the complainant obtained authorisation under Section 26 and 28 (1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 where breach of aforesaid Rules are defined in Section 24 of the Act. According to the complaint K. G Shafi Government Labour Officer and Inspector on 24.6.2011 visited the Arvind Ltd and found the aforesaid breach.
1.3 In the premise of aforesaid facts a criminal case was filed against Arvind Ltd and its whole time Director Mr. Jayesh Shah 1.4 Learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued process to Arvind Ltd and Mr. Jayesh Shah as a whole time Director.
1.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the issuance of the process under Section 204 of the CRPC, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this petition under Section 482 for quashing of the complaint and its proceedings.
2. In the factual background stated hereinabove the petitioner prayed to quash the issuance of the process in a Criminal Case for the offences punishable under Section 24 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
3. In the private complaint it is claimed by the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner has committed breach Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 23:37:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/30964/2016 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined of Rule No. 74, 81(1) and 82(2) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) (Gujarat) Rules, 1972.
4. The solitary argument before this Court is that the Company namely Arvind Limited has appointed Mr. Prakash P. Trivedi as a Manager and he would be responsible for any affairs of the Arvind Limited. Reference has been made at page 24, FORM NO. 3 whereby under the signature of Mr. Paresh P Trivedi, the renewal of license was sought.
5. In view of above, it is submitted that the petitioner Mr. Jayesh K. Shah though is the Director of the Arvind Limited has wrongly been joined in the criminal complaint as the Manager is already appointed for the purpose of any act or misdeed or the omission of the company. It is also submitted that the issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Vikram Pratapsingh Mahurkar Managing Director Vs. State of Gujarat in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5925 of 2015 and allied matters.
6. In the premise of the aforesaid argument it is submitted that since the petitioner does not fall into the definition of "Principal Employer" as defined under Section 2(1) (g) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition), 1970, he cannot be prosecuted in a criminal case. The argument is concluded with a request that process issued by the Court Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 23:37:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/30964/2016 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined below in a criminal case against the petitioner be quashed.
7. Considering the factual aspects of the case as well as the provision of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi submitted to pass necessary order.
8. It is in-controvertible that the petitioner though is the Director of the Arvind Ltd., one Mr. Paresh Trivedi has been appointed as a Manager of the Arvind Ltd., he would be responsible for all the acts and omissions of Arvind Ltd., and as such Mr.Paresh Trivedi falls in the definition of "Principal Employer", therefore he could be prosecuted for vicarious liability of Arvind Ltd. and not the present petitioner. In a comprehensive and detailed judgment in the case of Vikram Pratapsingh Mahurkar Managing Director (supra), the Coordinate Bench has discussed this issue. The reasons assigned by the Coordinate Bench in the judgment of Vikram Pratapsingh Mahurkar Managing Director (supra), would pari passu apply to the facts of the present case.
9. In view of above, without delving further into the merits of the case, both the petitions deserve consideration and accordingly both the petitions are allowed.
10. Issuance of the process against petitioner Mr. Jayesh Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 23:37:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/30964/2016 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined K. Shah in Criminal Case No. 3335 of 2011 and 3334 of 2011 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, (Court No.6) Ahmedabad and all consequential proceedings arise from the said complaints are hereby quashed and set aside.
11. It is made clear that the aforesaid order would not come in the way of joining the Manager as a "Principal Employer" in the criminal complaint.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MARY VADAKKAN Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 23:37:32 IST 2025