JUDGMENT Haridas Das, J. 1. These three revisional applications being Nos. 1861 of 1980, 1862 of 1980 and 1863 of 1980 are for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Case nos. C-2063 of 1978, C-2064 of 1978 and C-2362 of 1978 respectively. 2. On complaints made by the Inspector Shops and Establishments, the petitioners have been prosecuted under s.21(1) of the West Bengal Shops and Establishments Act, 1963 (for short the Act), and Rule 51 of the Rules framed thereunder for alleged violation of the provisions of ss.16(1), 17(1) and 18(1) of the said Act and Rules 13, 21, 30, 40, 48, 52 and 53 of the said Rules. 3. In the complaints, the petitioners of each of the three cases have been described as Proprietor/Directors of three Establishments namely, Estate establishment, Plywood establishment and Biscuit establishment run respectively under the name and style of Koley Properties (P) Ltd, Surma Valley Saw Mills (P) Ltd and Koley Biscuits Company (P) Ltd. 4. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Calcutta took cognizance on 9th August, 1978 and issued process against the petitioners. 5. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners do not answer to the description of ‘employer’ as defined in s. 2(4) of the Act and, as such, the cognizance taken in each of these cases is bad in law and the proceedings should, therefore, be quashed. 6. As defined in s. 2(4) of the Act, 'employer' means a person owning or having charge of an establishment and Includes an agent or a Manager of, and any other persons acting on behalf of such person in the general management or control of such establishment. 7. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. 6. As defined in s. 2(4) of the Act, 'employer' means a person owning or having charge of an establishment and Includes an agent or a Manager of, and any other persons acting on behalf of such person in the general management or control of such establishment. 7. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others reported In Supreme Court Cases, 1983 Vol.1 at page 1, on a complaint made by the Food Inspector, the Manager and Directors of a Company were prosecuted for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, inter alia, on the allegation that the accused were the Directors and as such they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the Company Upholding the decision of the High Court quashing the Proceedings against the Directors, the Supreme Court held in that case that apart from the presumption drawn by the complainant there was no evidence to show that there is any act committed by the Directors from which a reasonable interference can be drawn that they could also be vicariously liable and, therefore, no case against the Directors had been made out ex facie on the allegations made in the complaint. It is, however, pertinent to point out that while the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act contains specific provision dealing with offences committed by a Company, the West Bengal Shops and Establishments Act has no such corresponding provision. A question similar to the one before us arose for consideration in the case of S. Nag and ors. Vs. The State reported in 1983 (11) Calcutta High Court Notes at page 328 In that case the Chief Accountant, the Chairman, the Vice Chairman and two Directors of a Limited Company were Prosecuted for Violation of certain provisions of the West Bengal Shops and Establishment Act. Vs. The State reported in 1983 (11) Calcutta High Court Notes at page 328 In that case the Chief Accountant, the Chairman, the Vice Chairman and two Directors of a Limited Company were Prosecuted for Violation of certain provisions of the West Bengal Shops and Establishment Act. 1963 While quashing the proceedings against the petitioners in that case one of us held that in absence of any averment in the complaint to bring the petitioners within any part of the definition 'employer' the Magistrate was not justified in Issuing process against them to stand trial for an offence under s. 21 of the Act In the case reported in the 1988 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter at page 143, certain persons as partners of a Commercial Establishment were prosecuted for violation of the provision of West Bengal Shops and Establishments Act. It was held by Amal Kumar Chatterjee, J. that the complaint did not contain any allegation that the petitioners were in charge of the establishment and, as such, the petitioners could not be regarded as employers within the meaning of s.2(4) of the said Act 8. The complaints, in our view, do not disclose allegations bringing the petitioners or any of them within the meaning of the expression 'employer' as defined in s.2(4) and as such they cannot be made liable for prosecution for alleged offence under s.21 of the Act. A person must either be the owner of the establishment or he must be in charge of the establishment in the general management or control thereof so as to come within the definition of 'employer' We have noticed earlier that in the complaints, the petitioners were described as "Proprietor/Directors" of the related establishments run respectively by the three Companies referred to above The Companies, which are incorporated under the Companies Act, are the owners of the related establishments and the petitioners who are only Directors of the said Companies cannot, therefore. answer to the description of owner of the establishments as contemplated In the definition of 'employer', In absence of averment in the complaint, It can neither be assumed nor presumed that the Directors of a Company by reason only of their status as such Directors are responsible to the Company for the conduct of Its business or are In fact in charge of the business In the instant cases here are no allegations In the complaints that the petitioners were or any of them was in charge of the establishments in one capacity or other Such being the position, the petitioners do not also come within the mischief of the other part of the definition of 'employer' In view of the absence of allegation In the complaints bringing the petitioner within the meaning of the expression 'employer', it must be held that no case against the petitioners was made out and, accordingly, the learned Magistrate was not justified In issuing process against the petitioners to face the trial for alleged offence under s. 21 of the Act. 9. There is another aspect of the matter. From the records of the Court below, it appears that in the original complaints rubber stamps were impressed indicating that cognizance was taken, but such stamped endorsements do not bear the signature of the learned Magistrate. It is evident that the learned Magistrate had no occasion to apply his mind to the complaints against the petitioners and therefore, on this ground also the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 10. For reasons given above, we allow the applications and make the Rules absolute. The impugned proceedings are, therefore, quashed Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J : I agree Rule made absolute; proceedings quashed