Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1039 (JHR)

NARESH A. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

2004-10-15

H.S.PRASAD

body2004
Judgment : ( 1 ) IN both the Criminal Miscellaneous petitions facts involved are the same and, therefore, both the applications are being disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) BOTH the Criminal Miscellaneous petitions have been filed for quashing the cognizance order dated August 26, 2002 passed by learned CJM, Jamshedpur in C/2 Case Nos. 2009/2002 and 2010/2002 respectively. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case in Criminal miscellaneous Petition No. 1529/2003 in brief is that a prosecution report has been filed by the opposite party No. 2 against the petitioner and one another in the Court of CJM jamshedpur and in the said prosecution report it is alleged that some violations of Sections 12 (1) and 18 of the Minimum Wages Act and rules 21 (4 ). 22, 25 (2), 26 (1), 26 (2) and 26 (5)have been made. It is alleged that the opposite party No. 2 has made an inspection on July 15, 2002 at about 11. 45 AM of Graduate Engineers hostel (Mess) Telco, Jamshedpur along with some other officers of the Labour Department and during inspection one Anup Malthy was present and in course of Inspection he found the following irregularities: (i) As per requirement of Rule 21 (4) no register in form 1 and 2 was kept showing deduction from payments to the labourers on account of penalty and compensation. (ii) As per requirement of Rule 22 required informations and rates of wages were not displayed at the work site. (iii) As per requirement of Rule 25 (2)register for overtime was not kept (iv) As per requirement of Rule 26 (1)register of wages was not kept. (v) As per requirement of Rule 26 (2) no wage slip was given to the labourer. (vi) As per requirement of Rule 26 (5) no muster roll was kept. ( 4 ) BY memo No. 2340 dated July 26, 2002 through office peon, notice was served on the petitioner to file show cause, which was filed on July 29, 2002 but the same was found unsatisfactory and, thereafter, case was lodged. (vi) As per requirement of Rule 26 (5) no muster roll was kept. ( 4 ) BY memo No. 2340 dated July 26, 2002 through office peon, notice was served on the petitioner to file show cause, which was filed on July 29, 2002 but the same was found unsatisfactory and, thereafter, case was lodged. ( 5 ) THE prosecution case in Criminal miscellaneous Petition No. 1535/2003 in brief is that a prosecution report has been filed by the opposite party No. 2 against the petitioner and one another in the Court of CJM jamshedpur and in the said prosecution report it is alleged that some violations of Sections 12 (1) and 18 of the Minimum Wages Act Rules 21 (4), 22, 25 (2), 26 (1), 26 (2) and 26 (5) have been made. It is alleged that the opposite party no 2 has made an inspection on July 15, 2002 at about 6. 45 PM of Telco Engineers Hall (Mess), Telco Colony, Telco, Jamshedpur along with some other officers of the Labour department and during inspection one madhumita Roy was present and in course of inspection he found the following irregularities: (i) As per requirement of Rule 21 (4) no register in form 1 and 2 was kept showing deduction from payments to the labourers on account of penalty and compensation. (u) As per requirement of Rule 22 required informations and rates of wages were not displayed at the work site. (m) As per requirement of Rule 25 (2)register for overtime was not kept. (iv) As per requirement of Rule 26 (1)register of wages was not kept. (v) As per requirement of Rule 26 (2) no wage slip was given to the labourer. (vi) As per requirement of Rule 26 (5) no muster roll was kept. ( 6 ) BY memo No. 2336 dated July 26, 2002 through office peon, notice was served on the petitioner to file show cause, which was filed on July 29, 2002 but the same was found unsatisfactory and, thereafter, case was lodged. (vi) As per requirement of Rule 26 (5) no muster roll was kept. ( 6 ) BY memo No. 2336 dated July 26, 2002 through office peon, notice was served on the petitioner to file show cause, which was filed on July 29, 2002 but the same was found unsatisfactory and, thereafter, case was lodged. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is not i concerned in any way with the maintenance of work of Graduate Engineers Hostel (Mess), telco and Telco Engineers Hall (Mess), Telco colony as they have constituted a committee and they have employed persons, who worked as domestic persons and they do not come under the "schedule Employment" and when they do not come under the "schedule Employment", application of Minimum Wages Act will not come into force. It was further submitted that i allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, although the petitioner is not m any way concerned with the maintenance of register etc. and no such violation can be attributed due to him. It was further pointed out that no specific allegation has been levelled against him as to how he was responsible for the business of Graduate Engineers Hostel (Mess) and Telco engineers Hall (Mess), Telco. In this connection reliance was placed upon secundrabad Health Care Ltd. v. Secundrabad hospitals Pvt Ltd 1998 Cn LJ 4521 (AP)wherein it has been held that when no specific allegations are made against the persons that they were incharge and responsible for conduct of business, then they cannot be held liable. Reliance was further placed upon Municipal corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi air 1983 SC 67 : 1983 (1) SCC 1 wherein it has been held that when there is no specific allegation against the persons that they were responsible for the conduct of business, then proceeding can be quashed against such persons. Reliance was also placed upon State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal AIR 1998 SC 2327 : 1998 (5) SCC 343 , wherein it has been held that simply because a person is Director of the company, he does not vicariously become liable for the offence committed by the company, it must be shown that he was incharge of the company and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. ( 8 ) HERE in the instant case, opposite party no. ( 8 ) HERE in the instant case, opposite party no. 2 has failed to point out as to whether the petitioner was concerned with the day-to-day work of the management or was employer of the persons engaged in the management of the graduate Engineers Hostel (Mess), Telco and telco Engineers Hall (Mess), Telco and simply because he was holding a particular post, he was responsible, that cannot be a ground. No specific allegation about his role for the maintenance of work of the management has been alleged and further that the management has constituted a committee and they engaged the persons as domestic persons and, therefore, they do not come under "schedule employment" and if there is any violation and if they come under "schedule Employment", for that the petitioner is not responsible. ( 9 ) IN that view of the matter, from the discussions made above, I am of the view that the petitioner is not responsible for any lapses that have been found in course of inspection of the premises. ( 10 ) IN the result, both the applications are allowed and impugned order taking cognizance dated August 26, 2002 is hereby quashed. --- *** --- .