RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. versus STATE REP. BY M.R. BHAVSAR, BOMBAY

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 1212 · Decided: 30-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 13 S.C.R. 1212 
A 
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. 
V. 
STATE REP. BY M.R. BHAVSAR, BOMBAY 
(Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2002) 
SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 
' 
B 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.) 
The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 
c 1970; Ss. 2(e) and 7/Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S.482: 
Office/establishment of Government - College of Agri-
cultural Banking run by Reserve Bank of India - Issuance of 
show cause Notice for alleged contravention/violation of pro-
visions under s. 7 of the Act - Application for quashing of pro-
D ceeding dismissed by High Court - Correctness of - Held: 
Incorrect - High Court proceeded on an erroneous basis that 
RBI is an office/department of Government - The conclusion 
is clearly contrary to Scheme of RBI Act -Hence, judgments 
of High Coult and also proceeding initiated against the ap-
E pel/ant quashed - Reserve Bank of India Act. 
In a complaint filed against the principal of a College 
of Agricultural Banking, the enforcement officer issued a 
Show Cause Notice alleging violation of provisions un-
F 
der s.7 of the Contract Labour (Regulations and Aboli-
tion) Act, 1970. The Principal, appellant in the connected 
appeal, filed an application for quashing of the proceed-
ings on the ground that the Act does not apply to the Re-
serve Bank of India and/or the College because neither 
of them can be treated to be established under the Act. 
G The Application was dismissed by the High Court. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: A bare reading of the provisions under s.2(e) 
H 
1212 
.... 
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. v. STATE 
1213 
REP. BY M.R. BHAVSAR, BOMBAY [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
of the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 
A 
1970 makes the position clear that the Act applies to an 
establishment which is either an office or department of 
the Government or local authority in terms of Section 2(e)(i) 
of the Act. It is not the case of the respondent that Sec-
tion 2(e)(i) has application to the facts of the case. The B 
High Court proceeded on an erroneous basis that RBI is 
an office or department of the Government. This conclu-
sion is clearly contrary to the scheme of the RBI Act. 
Hence, the prosecution initiated on the basis of the com-
plaints filed cannot be maintained. Impugned judgments C 
of the High Court are quashed, so also the proceedings 
initiated on the basis of the complaints filed. (Paras -7 & 
8) [1215,G-H; 1216,A-B] 
C~IMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 61 of 2002 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.2.2001 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Crominal Application No. 3089 
of 1993 
Raju Ramachandran, Kuldeep S. Parihar and H.S. Parihar E 
for the Appellant. 
Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, D.S. Mahra and B.V. Balaram 
Das for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals 
is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay 
High Court, dismissing the applications filed questioning issu-
ance of process and also prosecution by which they are sought 
to be prosecuted for alleged contravention of provisions of Sec-
G 
tion 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 
1970 (in short the 'Act'). The appellant in Criminal Appeal no.62/ 
2002 is Principal of the College of Agricultural Banking, Pune 
(in short 'the College'), which is run by the Reserve Bank of 
India (in short 'RBI'), the appellant in criminal appeal no R~/200?. H 
1214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) issued show-cause 
notice alleging that there was violation of the provisions of the 
Act thereby attracting prosecution. The appellants in Criminal 
Appeal no.61/2002 took the stand before the High Court that 
the Act does not apply to the RBI and/or the college because 
B 
neither can be treated to be an establishment under the act. 
' 
The High Court did not accept the stand and held that there 
was no scope of exerCising power in terms of Section 482 of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') or 
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Con-
c stitution'). The High Court found that the appellants are not pros-
ecuted as an industry but as a government department/office 
and, therefore, can be treated to be an establishm_ent under the 
Act. Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed. 
2. Learned counsel for th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.