The General Manager, Hyd And 2 Othrs., v. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Hyd And ANR, -Pp.,
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMIN AL PETITION NO: 1585 oF 2014 Between:
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,S-9-62, 6th Floor, Lateef Khan Estate, Fateh Maidan Raod, HYderabad.
2. Sri Rajesh Dogra, Head Operations 61, A Block Sector - 63, Noida 201 3O1' Haryana.
3. Sri N.Chandra Sekharan, Executive Officer and M D TCS House, Raveline Street, Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO'1 TO 3 .t t'
AND '1 . Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Government of lndia, Ministry of Labour, A.T.l. Campus, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad' I i
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh,, rep by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENTS PetitionunderSection482ofCr'P.C.,prayingthatinthecircumstances I stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in STC.No 591 of 2013,on the file of the i Xll Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. l.A. NO:1 OF 2014(CRLPMP. NO: 1306 0F 2014) I PetitionUnderSection482ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in STC.No. 591 of 2013, on the file of the Xll Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally' Hyderabad.
tl.A. NO: 1 0F 2018 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,t he High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings include appearance of the ffi Petitioners/Accused in S.T.C. 591/20'13 on the file of the Xll lvletropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C.NIRANJAN RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, the Deputy Solicitor General of lndia, represented by Sri V.T.Kalyan, on behaif of the Respondent No. 1 and of Public Prosecutor (TG) for the Respondent No_ 2 The Court made the following: ORDER i.t -t'
l.
c, l i
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE E.V.VENUGOPAL Criminal Petition No.1585 oF 2014 ORDER:
This criminal petition, under section 482 Cr.P.C, is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in S.T.C.No.591 of 2013 on the file of the XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. Heard Sri P.Vidyasagar, learned counsel representing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri V.T.Kalyan, learned counsel representing on behalf of learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondents. The Labour Enforcement Officer filed a complaint stating that he inspected the Regional Passport Office, Secunderabad on 25.11.2010 at about 14.
fines, deductions and advances, register of overtime and half yearly return for 2Q72 December. It is further alleged that the said contraventions have been incorporated in the inspection report No.35(60) Z0L3ILEOIPBNKK/HYD, dated 19.07.2013, after a lapse of atmost three years from the date of the alleged inspection, and a copy of the same has been sent to the petitioners to report the compliance within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice. It is further alleged that a copy of the said notice was endorsed to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Hyderabad. On the basis of the said complaint the present prosecution is launched against the petitioners.
4.
A perusal of record goes to show that this Court granted stay of all further proceedings in src No.591 of 2013 on the file of XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad on 17.02.2e14. 5.
Mr.P.Vidyasagar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners would submit that the complaint itself is not clear. Firstly, on the violation of law, secondly it is irregular pertaining to the notices and moresoever, it is not clear whether the services are being named on any petitioners herein, hence no allegation would survive as against the petitioners, as no where it is found that the petitioners who have been arrayed in the complaint are physically present at the time of investigation and nowhere in the inspection note, the petitioners are being named and
,/ without there being any allegation as against the petitioners, the petitioners have been arrayed in the complaint, which is illegal and not as per the provision of section 27 of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, the limitation for taking cognlzance of the offence is prescribed as three months, it is evident in the notice sent to the petitioners herein vide Lr. No.Cl(Cont) I 35(60) I 2013 ILEO(C)/PB/Hyd, dated 19.07 .20t3 at column v of the particulars of the Contractors Establishment in the Inspection Repoft which states that 25.11.2011 is the date of commencement of contract work.
6. It is further submitted that the work entrusted to the accused company was not in RPO, Secunderabad, as alleged but are serving elsewhere i.e. at passport seva kendras operated by Tata Consultancy Services Limited and he also draws the attention of this Court to the agreement entered by the Ministry of External Affairs vide No.CPV/PMU/5761OL1LL, dated 22.12.2011 permitting to operate by the petitioner in the state of Andhra Pradesh and more particularly in Hyderabad at Passport Seva Kendras. The alleged offence has not been committed at Passport Seva Kendras operated by Tata Consultancy Services Limited but in RPO, Secunderabad. The said notice complaint S.T.C.591 of 2013 on the file of the learned XII Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally has been hit by the infirmity of law. ---
i, l,
7. It is further submitted that the complaint appears to proceed on the basis that the said M/s Tata Consultancy Services Limited have deployed its employees at the Regional Passport Office, Secunderabad numbering 33 in all, as on 25.09.2010 without valid licence. The petitioners submit that as on the said date the said company Tata Consultancy Services Limited have not deployed any of its employees and none of its employees were working at the office of the Regional Passpoft Office, Secunderabad and therefore no question arises of either complying with the Contract labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act or the rules thereunder.
In fact M/s Tata Consultanry Services Limited has nothing to do either with the administration or with the management of affairs of the Regional passport Office, Secunderabad which is under the control of Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. It is submitted that all the employees, workers, contract labour and other staff working in Regional Passport office are under the control of Regional Passport Office which is managed and maintained by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India.
In such circumstances neither the petitioners nor their company Tata Consultancy Services Limited has anything to do with Regional Passport office, Secunderabad and they were not involved in providing any services to the Regional passport Office, Secunderabad either through the engagement of contract labour or otherwise and have nothing to do with the said office. This fact was communicated to the 1$ respondent vide its response dated 02.08.
the said inspection report dated L9.7.2013. However the 1$ respondent proceeded to file the said complaint totally ignoring the said response given by Tata Consultanry Services Limited.
8. It is further submitted that the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India entered into an agreement dated 13.10.2008 with M/s Tata Consultancy Services Limited to implement the passport seva project with an object to provide the citizens of India Passport related services in an efficient, convenient and transparent manner. Accordingly the Tata Consultancy Services Limited is only a service provider to the Ministry of External Affairs in implementing the said Passport Seva Project and by virtue of above agreement the Ministry of External Affairs has permitted Tata Consultancy Services Limited to set up and operate passport seva kendras across India at the locations specified by them i.e. Ameerpet, Begumpet and Tolichowki centres in Hyderabad.
As already pointed out the said company has no role to play in the running of the Regional Passport Office, Secunderabad which is under the control of Ministry of external affairs, Government of India. Moreover, the ls respondent inspected the premises on 25.11.2010 and filed the complaint before the learned \ \ Magistrate only on 23.10.2013 i.e. after lapse of almost three years.
(;
as three months. Therefore the complaint is barred by limitation and the learned Magistrate ought not have taken cognizance of the case and therefore seeks to allow the present criminal petition. 9.
Mr. V.T.Kalyan, learned counsel representing on behalf of learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondents submitted that the inspection was conducted on 19.7.2013 at the centres which were run by the petitioners and accordingly inspection report was served upon the regional passport office, Secunderabad stating that it is necessary to obtain the licenses as per law. Hence on the said discrepancy, the notices have been served upon the petitioners passport offices which were located at Begumpet, Ameerpet and Tolichowki which were run by Tata Consultancy Service Limited. Therefore seeks to dismiss the petition,
10. Having considered the submissions made by both side counsel, the criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner herein in S.T.C.No.591 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the learned XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. 11, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.
Sd/. T. VIJAY KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR t !
/TTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER ,* ,.{, fiI , To, '1 . The Xll N4etropolitan Magistrate' Nampally' Hyderabad Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI One CC to SRl. C. NIRANJAN RAO Advocate [OPUC]
HIGH COURT tHE ST416 ( rr o DATED:2711212023 J?, 21 I'IAR 2024 ,i * DEsparcBeA t
ORDER
CRLP.No.1585 of 2014 I ;
i I ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION I I I I I I i b 1+