LACHMAN SINGH Vs. LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
LAWS(APH)-1986-4-3
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on April 01,1986

LACHMAN SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
LABOUR, ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (CENTRAL), Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RASHTRIYA MILL MAZDOOR SANGH V. MODEL MILLS,NAGPUR [REFERRED TO]
HEAVY ENGINEERING MAZDOOR UNION VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA WORKERS UNION VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

RETNAMMA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-12-244] [REFERRED]
JAYAPRAKASH VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-9-221] [REFERRED]
SHIBU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-9-214] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

Rama Rao, J. - (1.)Petition under section 482 of Cr. P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash all proceedings in S.T.C. No. 381 of 1985 on the file of the Honourable Court of Munsif Magistrate special Court for cases under. Factories Act and Labour Acts, Hyderabad.
(2.)This petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. E. Madanmohanarao advocate for the petitioners and of Mr. K. Jagannadharao standing counsel for Central Government for the respondent No. 1 and of the AddI. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State (respondent No. 2). The court made the following Order:
(3.)This is a petition to quash the proceedings in, S.T.C. No. 3818 of 1985 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, special court for cases tinder the Factories Act and the Labour Acts, Hyderabad. The 1st petitioner is the Managing partner of M/s. Lachman Singh and Brothers, and the second petitioner is the partner of M/s. Lachman Singh and Brothers and has been carrying on contracts work with the State Government, Central Government and other public sector organisations. The Labour Enforcement Officer issued a show cause notice dated 10. 12.84 for non-observance of the rules of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Control Rules 1971 stating that the firm failed to display the notice of abstract of the Act and Rules in English and Hindi in contravention of rule 79, and failed to provide latrine and urinal facilities to the contract labour as per rules 51 to 56 read as with section 18.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.