Madras High Court

S.Sridhar vs State on 12 November, 2021

                                                                     Crl.O.P. Nos.20373 and 20374 of 2017



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 12.11.2021

                                                     CORAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

                                        Crl. O.P. Nos.20373 and 20374 of 2017
                                                         and
                                         Crl.M.P.Nos.12214 to 12217 of 2017

                S.Sridhar                                      ...Petitioner in both Crl.OPs

                                                        Vs.

                State,
                Rep. by Ms.S.Suriya,
                Deputy Director (BOCW) - II
                Industrial Safety and Health,
                47/1, Thiru.V.Ka. Industrial Estate,
                Guindy, Chennai- 600 032.                     ...Respondent in both Crl.ops

PRAYER in Crl.OP.No.20373 of 2017: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for records and to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.1999 of 2017 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur as against the petitioner.

PRAYER in Crl.OP.No.20374 of 2017: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for records and to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.1998 of 2017 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur as against the petitioner.


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                Page 1 / 9
                                                                        Crl.O.P. Nos.20373 and 20374 of 2017




                                  For Petitioner          : Mr.Abdul Saleem
                                  For Respondent          : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
                                                            Government Advocate (Crl. Side)


                                                   COMMON ORDER

Two complaints have been filed by the Deputy Director, Industrial Safety

and Health Department for violation of the provisions of Building and Other

Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service)

Act, 1996 (BOCW Act).

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 15.02.2017, one worker viz.,

Elumalai was employed in the Second Floor of the building owned by the

petitioner herein, while mixing the cement, fell down from the second floor and

succumbed to injury. Thereupon, the Respondent has conducted an enquiry and

found that the employer has not sent notice of accident immediately and

violated the provisions of the Section 39(1) r/w Rule 210(1)(a)(b) and Rule

210(7) of the BOCW Act and the Tamil Nadu Building and other Construction

Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2006.

3. Similarly, it is also alleged that the petitioner being an employer, has

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 / 9 Crl.O.P. Nos.20373 and 20374 of 2017

not provided constant and adequate supervision of any building or other

construction work in his establishment, therefore, violated the Section 44 Rule

5(5) of the Act and Rules. That they violated Section 34 rule 5 and other

violations alleged that he has not maintained the Muster Roll in Form XVI and

in the above construction. Thereby, violated the provisions of the Section

62(1)(2)(t) Section 30(1) Rule 241(1)(a)(9) of the Act and Rules. Another

complaint was also lodged under Section 62(1)(2)(zc) Section 40(1)(2)(u)

Rules 42(5) of the Act and Rules.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contened that

the prosecution launched against the petitioner is not according to law and in

fact the Petitioner will not come under the definition of the employer as per the

Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and

Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (BOCW Act).

5. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that

as per the definition 2(1)(i) of the BOCW Act referred above, only the

contractor would be the employer and it is his further contention that in the

similar matter, this Court has quashed the proceedings in the judgement in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 / 9 Crl.O.P. Nos.20373 and 20374 of 2017

Babu Bhardagond vs. The State Rep.by the Deputy Diretor (BOCW)

[Crl.O.P.(MD) NO.2938 of 2017 Dated 07.09.2018]. Learned Counsel for the

Petitioner also contended that even in the inspection report filed by the

authorities clearly indicated that the entire building construction work was

given to a contractor. Such being the position, launching the prosecution

against the person, who is no way connected to the alleged violation is not

sustainable in law. At the worst case even assuming that the company can be

prosecuted under Section 53 of the Act even then the only person who was

incharge of day to day affairs of the company would be prosecuted. But herein,

the prosecution simply filed the complaint against the petitioner who is not a

company. Learned counsel further submitted that when the entire contruction

work was carried away through contractor as per the Act itself, only the

contractor alone would be construed as an employer. Therefore, submitted that

the prosecution launched by the Respondent is nothing but abuse of process of

law and cannot be sustained. It is also submitted that the prosecution has

already launched against the contractor in STC.No.1996 and 1997 of 2017 for

the similar provisions for the same violations, wherein the contractor has

already admitted the guilt and paid fine.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) admitted that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 / 9 Crl.O.P. Nos.20373 and 20374 of 2017

contractor has already paid fine and thereafter two private complaints have

been filed aginst him. It is his contention that the definition of the employer

covers the owner also. Therefore, there is no bar for lodging a complaint

against the owner of the building. Hence, opposed to order these Petitions.

7. I have perused the entire materials. As indicate above, for various

violations, the private complaint has been filed and taken on file. It is to be

noted that Section 2(i)(iii) of the Building and Other Construction Workers

(Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (BOCW

Act)., the definition of the “employer” reads as follows:

2(i) “employer”, in relation to an establishment, means the owner thereof, and includes,—

(i) in relation to a building or other construction work carried on by or under the authority of any department of the Government, directly without any contractor, the authority specified in this behalf, or where no authority is specified, the head of the department;

(ii) in relation to a building or other construction work carried on by or on behalf of a local authority or

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 / 9 Crl.O.P. Nos.20373 and 20374 of 2017

other establishment, directly without any contractor, the chief executive officer of that authority or establishment;

(iii) in relation to a building or other construction work carried on by or though a contractor, or by the employment of building workers supplied by a contractor, the contractor.”

8. Section 2(i)(iii) makes it very clear that in respect of any building or

other construction work carried on by or through a contractor or by the

employment of building workers supplied by a contractor, apart from the owner

the Contractor is also to be considered as employer. The meaning of the

employer assigning in the definition is inclusive one. However it is to be noted

that though above provision includes owner, when the owner was not incharge

of the building and in full control of construction, contractor alone to be

considered as employer.

9. Be that as it may. The Petitioner was prosecuted individual capacity.

But the inspection report filed by the authorities available in the typed set

clearly indicate that the entire building was under the control of the contractor

and it is also not disputed that the contractor also prosecuted for the same

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 / 9 Crl.O.P. Nos.20373 and 20374 of 2017

violations in STC No.1996 and 1997 of 2017 which has already disposed of by

payment of the fine by the contractor. It is to be noted that the prosecution has

not even whispered in the complaint as to whether the petitioner alone is the

owner of the property, to bring the petitioner within the definition of Section 2

of the Act. There is a provision under Section 53 of the Act to maintain the

prosecution against the company. Section 53 is an anologues provision of

Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. To prosecute any of the

Directors of the company, it must be shown by the prosecution that at the time

of the offence, the person to be prosecuted was incharge of the affairs of the

company or he was responsible for any act. It is not shown by the prosectuion

in the complaint that the petitioner was actually incharge of the company at the

relevant point of time and he was responsible for the alleged violations. Further,

the company has also not been made as an accused. Therefore without company

being made an accused, without showing any materials that the petitioner was

also responsible for all the day to day affairs of the company, the prosecution

initiated against the person in his individual capacity cannot be sustained in the

eye of law. In the similar set of facts, this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2938 of

2017 (cited supra) quashed similar prosecution.

10. This Court is also referred the judgment of the Karnataka High Court

in Sri Jitendra Virwani vs. The State of Karnataka [2013 SCC Online 6547] https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 / 9 Crl.O.P. Nos.20373 and 20374 of 2017

wherein, the Karnataka High Court has quashed the proceedings on the ground

that the company was not made as a principal offender and was not prosecuted

and only the complaint was filed directly against the officer of the company.

Taking note of the fact that the person was directly prosecuted without any

averments or materials to show that he was individual owner of the property

without making the company as an accused and without establishing the fact

that the person prosecuted was actually incharge of the company affairs or

responsible for any act. The prosecution launched against the present petitioner

is not maintainable. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

11. It is also stated that similar violation, the contractor has already

prosecuted and he has already admitted and paid fine. Therefore, for the same

violation, there cannot be a prosecution once again. On that ground also the