1 2026:CGHC:17982 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 55 of 2021  M/s KCC MBPL (JV) Registered Address - BU-5, SFS Flats, Near Income Tax Colony, Outer Ring Road Pitampura Delhi- 110034 Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Sourav Ghosh, S/o Late Goutam Ghosh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o LIG 140, Kosabadi, RP Nagar Phase 2 Ward No. 21, Korba Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. The Union Of India Through Its Secretary Ministry Of Labour And Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi- 110001. 2. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Bilaspur, Torwa Main Road Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/U.O.I. : Mr. Abhishek Banjare, C.G.C. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.04 .2026 1. The petitioner by filing this petition has challenged validity and propriety of cognizance taken by the learned Labour Court, Raigarh in the matter of “Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Vs M/s KCC-MBPL (JV)” registered as 15/CL ACT/2019 under the provisions of Section 27 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970(for short “Act, 1970”). 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner firm is joint venture firm of two private limited companies and it is registered under Section 10 of the Act of 1970. On 20.06.2018, an inspection was conducted by the Inspector within the premises of the petitioner firm, and thereafter, a written notice of SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.04.22 17:10:11 +0530 2 inspection and irregularities found out therein was communicated to the petitioner on 06.07.2018. The Inspector filed a complaint according to the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act of 1970 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class on 12.11.2018 with a prayer to take cognizance against the petitioner firm. The concerned Court took cognizance and admitted the matter vide order dated 04.01.2019. The petitioner has challenged entire proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh and cognizance taken by it on the ground that complaint was filed by the Inspector after expiry of three months from the date of inspection, therefore, the complaint itself was not maintainable. 3. Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate would argue that according to the provisions of Section 27 of the Act of 1970, the concerned Court may take cognizance of an offence punishable under Act of 1970 if complaint is made within three months from the date of which the alleged commission of offence came to knowledge of an Inspector. He would contend that the inspection was conducted by the Inspector on 20.06.2018, whereas, complaint case was filed on 12.11.2018, after expiry of three months period prescribed in Section 27 of the Act, 1970, therefore, the complaint case was not maintainable at all. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka in the matter of Ben Salmon and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 970. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Banjare, Advocate appearing for respondents would oppose. He would submit that a written notice was issued to the petitioner on 06.07.2018 and before expiry of period of six months, complaint case was filed with the concerned Court. He would refer proviso 3 appended to Section 27 of the Act of 1970 and would submit that as there was disobedience of a show cause notice/written order made by the Inspector; therefore, the complaint was maintainable before the concerned Court after expiry of three months. He would contend that this petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Perusal of the documents annexed along with writ petition would show that an inspection was conducted by the Inspector on 20.06.2018, wherein irregularities were found out, and thereafter, a written notice was issued to the petitioner on 06.07.2018. It is admitted fact that the petitioner did not file reply to said notice, and thereafter, the Inspector filed complaint case before the concerned Court on 12.11.2018. 7. Section 27 of the Act of 1970 reads as under :- 27. Limitation of prosecutions.— No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act unless the complaint thereof is made within three months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an inspector: Provided that where the offence consists of disobeying a written order made by an inspector, complaint thereof may be made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. 8. Bare reading of the above-quoted provision would make it clear that a complaint can be made by an Inspector before the concerned Court within period of three months from the date of alleged commence of offence under this Act. In the present case, complaint case was filed by the Inspector before 4 the concerned Court after expiry of three months. 9. With regard to contention made by Mr. Abhishek Banjare, no order has been placed on record to demonstrate that order passed by any authority or Inspector was disobeyed by the petitioner; therefore, the contention made by Mr. Banjare that period of limitation would be six months appears to be misconceived. 10. The High Court of Karnataka in the matter of Ben Salmon (supra) while dealing with the similar provision in para 8 held that as per proviso to Section 27 where the offence consists of disobeying a written order made by an inspector, complaint thereof may be made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. However, what has been issued to the petitioners is not an order, is a show-cause notice which cannot be called as order and therefore the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation and as such the Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance. 11. Taking into consideration above-stated facts, and particularly, the provisions of Section 27 of Act of 1970, I have no hesitation to hold that the concerned Magistrate committed error of law while taking cognizance of the complaint, which was filed beyond three months period, thus, petition is allowed. The proceedings pending before the concerned Court of case No. 15/CL ACT/2019 and cognizance taken thereof are hereby quashed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant