PENALTIES AND PROCEDURE :
The Act refers to the following types of offences and provide for penalties as shown against each.
Section 22
| (a) Obstructing an inspector in the discharge of his duties under the Act or refusal or wilful neglect to afford the inspector any reasonable facility for making any inspection, examination, enquiry or investigation authorised by or under the Act in relation to an establishment to which, or a contractor to whom, this Act applies [Section 22(1)]. | Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months or fine which may extend to Rs. 500 or both. |
| (b) Wilful refusal to produce on the demand of an inspector any register or other document kept in pursuance of this Act or prevention or attempted prevention or doing anything which the inspector has reason to believe is likely to prevent any person from appearing before or being examined by an Inspector acting in pursuance of his duties under the Act [Section 22(2)]. | Imprisonment for a term which mayextend to 3 months or fine which may extend to Rs. 500/- or both. |
Section 23
| Contravention of any provision of the Act or any rule made thereunder prohibiting or restricting or regulating employment of contract labour or contravention of any condition of a license granted under the Act. | Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months or fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000 or both. |
In case of a continuing contravention an additional fine which may extend to Rs. 100/- per day during which the contravention continues after conviction for the first such contraventions, may be imposed.
Section 24
| Contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or of any rule made thereunder for which no penalty is elsewhere provided. | Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months or fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000/- or both. |
Offences by companies
(1) If the person committing an offence under this Act is a company, the company as well as every person in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business at the time of the commission of the offence shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against any punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing containing in this Sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1) where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or that the commission of the offence is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, managing agent or any other officer of the company, such director, manager, managing agent or such other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. (Section 25)
Explanation: For the purpose of this Section
(a) “company” means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and
(b) “director”, in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm.
Cognizance of offence: Section 26 provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by, or with the previous sanction in writing of, the inspector and no Court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.
Limitation of prosecutions: Section 27 prescribing limitation of prosecutions stipulates that 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.
It has been held by the Patna High Court in Padam Prasad Jain v. State of Bihar and another, (1979) I LLJ p. 111, that executing contract labour without a licensee, constituted a fresh offence every day on which it continued and, therefore, the limitation prescribed under Section 27 for taking cognizance of an offence does not apply.