HC Quashes Contract Labour Act Prosecution as Time-Barred and Without Jurisdiction

Case Details: Tata Play Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka [2026] 186 taxmann.com 910 (HC-Karnataka)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.
• K. Kasturi, Sr. Adv., Nupur Dave Prasad & Vineet Hosmane, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Smt. Prathibha R.K., AGA for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioners were a company engaged in providing direct-to-home television services and its employees.
The petitioners stated that the Central Government had issued a notification on 04.11.2004 declaring industry as controlled by the Central Government, an agreement was executed with Union of India on 24.03.2006, a licence was granted on 24.03.2006 under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and a registration certificate under Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was granted on 13.09.2007 by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Mumbai to engage contract labour throughout India. They claimed full compliance with the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

Despite this, the State authorities initiated criminal proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, by filing complaints leading to C.C. No. 879/2013 (alleged offence under Section 22(b) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970) and C.C. No. 880/2013 (alleged offence under Section 26 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970), and cognizance was taken and process issued.
It was noted since business carried out by the petitioner No.1 was governed under provisions of Act of 1885 and said industry was controlled by the Central Government in view of Notification under Section 2(a)(i) of Act of 1947, jurisdiction to grant registration certificate vested with Central Government officials under of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the State Government officials did not have jurisdiction and authority to grant registration certificate.

Further, it was noted that since the inspection was conducted on 26.11.2012 and the complaint was lodged on 18.05.2013, i.e., more than three months after the commission of the alleged offence was known to the commission, the complaint was time-barred. The Magistrate could not have taken cognisance of the offence.

High Court Held

The High Court held that since inspection was made in premises which was identified as ‘Tata Sky Repair Center’, it was not forthcoming as to whether ‘Tata Sky Repair Center’ was owned by the petitioner No.1-Company and if it was owned by any other entity other than the petitioner No.1, then prosecution ought to have been lodged against said entity or proprietor or partnership firm as case may be.

Thus, the prosecution against the petitioners for alleged offences under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, was impermissible.