The case titled “Union Bank of India Through Chief Manager Mahendra vs. State of U.P. and Another” (Application U/S 482 No. 2759 of 2013) was heard in the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench. The Union Bank of India, represented by its Chief Manager Mahendra, filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash Criminal Complaint Case No. 18 of 2012. The complaint was filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Lucknow, under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
Important Legal Issues
1. Jurisdiction and Applicability of the Contract Labour Act: The primary issue was whether the Union Bank of India could be considered a “Principal Employer” under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and whether the Act applied to the bank’s activities.
2. Validity of the Inspection Report: The Union Bank of India contested the validity of the inspection report, arguing that no construction work was being carried out at the inspected premises on the date mentioned.
3. Judicial Application of Mind: The court examined whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate applied judicial mind while entertaining the criminal complaint and issuing the summoning order.
Key Observations
1. Inspection Report Validity: The court found merit in the argument that no construction work was ongoing at the Sharda Towers, Kapoorthala, Lucknow, on the date of inspection (20.09.2011). The bank had shifted its office to Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, and the construction work there was nearly complete.
2. Principal Employer Definition: The court agreed with the applicant that the Union Bank of India could not be termed as a “Principal Employer” since the work being done was under a “contract for service” and not a “contract of service.”
3. Judicial Application of Mind: The court noted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had not applied judicial mind while registering the case. The order merely stated “Register” without any detailed reasoning or issuance of summons.
Court’s Ruling
The Allahabad High Court, presided by Justice Shamim Ahmed, quashed the criminal complaint proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. The court emphasized the necessity of judicial application of mind in such cases and cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court’s rulings in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate.
Important Quotes from the Judgment
– “The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not.”
– “Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course.”
Also Read
Parties Involved
– Applicant: Union Bank of India, represented by Chief Manager Mahendra
– Opposite Party 1: State of Uttar Pradesh
– Opposite Party 2: Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Lucknow
Legal Representation
– For the Applicant: Senior Advocate S.B. Pandey, assisted by Varun Pandey and Chandra Shekhar Sinha
– For the Opposite Party: Government Advocate Sandeep Sharma and A.G.A. Ashok Kumar Singh
