Judgment Madhavendra Saran, J. 1. In this miscellaneous application filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short as the Code) prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 28.7.1997 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 817(M)/97, by which he has taken cognizance under Sec. 20(3) of the Payment of Wages Act and Rule 21 of Payment of Wages (Air Transport Service) Rules, 1968. 2. it appears that on 28.7.1997 Abhijeet Kumar, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Patna filed a petition of complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 20(3) of the Payment of Wages Act and Rule 21 of Payment of Wages (Air Transport Service) Rule 1968 on the ground that on 30.1.1997 he inspected the firm of the petitioner named M/s Arya Travels inspected and observed the following: 1. (a) The wage period for which wages are payable as per Rule 11 (1)(i). (b) For not less than two weeks in advance the days on which wages are to be paid as per Rule 22(i)(ii). (c) The rates of wages and scales of allowance payable to persons employed as per Rule 11(i)(iii). (d) A day of date on which unpaid wages are to be paid as per Rule 11 (i)(iv). 2. Copies of all such notices and alterations as per Rule 11(1) (I), (ii), (iii), (iv) have not been sent to the Inspector as per Rule 11 (I) (iv). 3. Approved list of Acts and omission as per Ruie-12 has not been displayed in (a) English (b) In the language of the majority of the persons employed which is Hindi. 4. Notice showing name and complete address of the Inspector has not been displayed as required under Rule 11(2). 5. Notice containing abstracts from the Act and Rules made thereunder in Form XI has not been displayed in English and in the language of the majority of the persons which is Hindi as required under Rule-20 read with Section-25. 6. Form-I showing opening/reopening/discontinuance, abandonment, resumption and change in the ownership address etc. has not been submitted to the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Patna as required under Rule-3. 7. 6. Form-I showing opening/reopening/discontinuance, abandonment, resumption and change in the ownership address etc. has not been submitted to the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Patna as required under Rule-3. 7. Register of Wages in Form-V as per Rule-6, Register of Fines in Form-II as per Rule-4, Register of Deduction for damage or loss in Form-Ill as per Rule-5, Register of Advance in Form-IX as per Rule 17(3), Register of loan in Form-X as per Rule 18(3), Register of Muster Roll in Forrn-IV have not been kept at the work spot as per Rule-6. 3. The offences as observed by the complainant were incorporated in the inspection report cum show cause notice no. 24(3)/97 dated 5.3.1997 but the reply submitted by accused petitioner was not found to be satisfactory one and hence the complaint was filed. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 28.7.1997 took cognizance under Section 20(3) of the Payment of Wages Act and directed the office to summon the petitioner. Against the said order of cognizance the petitioner has preferred the present application for quashing before this Court. 4. The submission of learned counsel is that the petitioner M/s Arya Travels is a partnership firm having its head office at Ranchi and is engaged in the business of Travel Agency i.e. booking of tickets for persons who are desirous of travelling by air by Indian Air Lines, Sahara India etc. The Patna office of petitioners Travel Agency is registered under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Rules 1955 bearing registration No. PT- 31904 registered in the year 1988, Further submission is that the Payment of Wages (ATS) Rules 1968 are applicable against persons employed in Air Transport Service and the same is not applicable against the petitioner. Learned counsel further pointed out that Payment of Wages Act is a Central Act and therefore, the same is also not applicable against the petitioner because the petitioners shop had been registered under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act and only the Labour Enforcement Officer of the Bihar Government is authorised to inspect the petitioners premises. Learned counsel further pointed out that from Annexure-6 it appears that the petitioners establishment was inspected under the impression that the same was functioning under Air India corporation. 5. From what has been argued it appears that petitioners firm M/s Arya Travels is engaged in the business of Travel Agency. Learned counsel further pointed out that from Annexure-6 it appears that the petitioners establishment was inspected under the impression that the same was functioning under Air India corporation. 5. From what has been argued it appears that petitioners firm M/s Arya Travels is engaged in the business of Travel Agency. Petitioners agency stands registered under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act vide Annexure-4 dated 14.12.1988. Admittedly Payment of Wages Act is a Central Act and it governs only the Central Government Organisation. As argued by learned counsel. Payment of Wages Act has no application against the petitioners firm because the same has been registered under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act and there are provisions in the Bihar Act similar to the provisions made in the Payment of Wages Act. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the business carried on by the petitioner i.e. Travel Agency cannot be brought under the purview of Payment of Wages Act or the Payment of Wages (Air Transport Service) Rules, 1968 and so Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Patna cannot have any jurisdiction to inspect the premises of the petitioner. Thus the continuance of the present prosecution of the petitioner is an abuse of the process of the Court. 7. This application is accordingly allowed and the order of cognizance as against the petitioner is hereby quashed.