Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This application is under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioner in Case No. C-III-1/87 including the order of cognizance dated 16-1-1987. 2. The fact in short giving rise to this revision is that the Labour Enforcement Officer duly appointed as Inspector under Section 14 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 filed a complaint on 15-1-1987 as against the petitioner and also against Central Coa Fields Ltd. through Shri P. K. Ratnam, Superintendent of Mines alleging therein that he inspected a coal mines on 6-10-1986 and found various irregularities and violation of Rule 8 and other Rules of Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956 and so the complaint was filed under Rule 22 of the said rules. 3. This petition was filed for quashing the entire proceeding and a submission was made at the time of hearing that the prosecution is bad mainly for the reason that one of the petitioners is Director (Technical) and the other petitioners are Project Officers and Agents of the mines of K. D. Colliery of Central Coal Fields Ltd. at the relevant time and they are mainly responsible for achieving the production targets and only a supervising officer and not directly responsible for the alleged offence and so the prosecution against them is not maintainable but from the complaint petition itself it is clear that the petitioner No. 1 is described as Director (Technical) and also he had been declared as owner of mines known as K. P. Colliery and similarly petitioner No. 2 is the Project Officer and Agent of the said Mines and as such they are employer as defined under Rule 2(g) of Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956. So from the allegations in the complaint petition it is clear that they come within the category of employer of the Mines and in that view of the matter prima faciely complaint is maintainable if at all the petitioners are not in the category of employer as defined in Rule 2 g) of the rules then these are all question of facts to be enquired by the trial Court at the appropriate stage. 4. Under the circumstances from the bare reading of the complaint petition, in my opinion, no case is made out for quashing the entire criminal proceeding. Accordingly this application is dismissed.