Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 477 (JHR)

P. B. Prasad v. State of Bihar

2011-06-12

R.R.PRASAD

body2011
JUDGMENT By Court.-A complaint was lodged by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central). Ranchi. appointed an Inspector under Section 9 of the Equal Remuneration Act. 1976. alleging therein that on inspection of the Establishment known as Indian Institute of Coal Management. Ranchi it was found that Superintending Engineer (Civil)/General Manager of Indian Institute of Coal Management. Ranke. Ranchi failed to maintain register in Form- D at the place of work which is in violation of Rule 6 and hence liable to be prosecuted under Section 10 of the Remuneration Act. 1976. On such complaint case was registered as cm Case No. 202 of 1998. in which cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 10 of the Remuneration Act against the petitioner on 8.10.1998 by the then learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. Ranchi, which order has been challenged in this criminal application. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Indian Institute of Coal Management, Ranchi. is an autonomous body which has been registered under the Societies Registration Act and as such the Central Government would never be an appropriate Government in terms of the provision of Equal Remuneration Act. 1976, and as such Inspector appointed by the Central Government would never be the competent to lodge a complaint for contravention of the provisions of the Equal Remuneration Act. 1976. In spite of that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under the Equal Remuneration Act on a complaint lodged by the Inspector appointed by the Central Government and as such order taking cognizance is quite bad. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2. wherein it has been stated that the Indian Institute of Coal Management. Ranchi is registered with the Ministry of Labour. Government of India and has been provided with its registration number under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act. 1970. and as such the Central Government is an appropriate Government for the purpose of enforcement of Equal Remuneration Act. 1976. 4. It be stated that the plea which has been taken on behalf of the petitioner is that the Indian Institute of Coal Management is an autonomous body has never been denied rather plea has been taken that the said establishment is registered under the Ministry of Labour. Government of India. 5. 1976. 4. It be stated that the plea which has been taken on behalf of the petitioner is that the Indian Institute of Coal Management is an autonomous body has never been denied rather plea has been taken that the said establishment is registered under the Ministry of Labour. Government of India. 5. Thus the point for consideration is as to whether the appropriate Government would be the Central. Government or State Government in reference to Indian Institute of Coal Management for enforcement for the provisions of Equal Remuneration Act. 1976? 6. Definition of "appropriate Government has been given in Section 2(a)(i) of the Equal Remuneration Act. 1976 which reads as follows :- (i) in relation to any employment carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or a railway administration or in relation to a banking company a mine oilfield or major port or any corporation established by or under a Central Government. and (ii) in relation to any other employment the State Government.; 7. It has never been pleaded on behalf of the Central Government that the Indian Institute of Coal Management has been established by the Central Government or under the Central Act. whereas it is the plea of the petitioner that the said institute is an autonomous body. In that view of the matter even if the institute is registered with the Ministry of Labour. Government of India it cannot be said that the Indian Institute of Coal Management has been established by or under the Central Government. If that is not so the Central Government would never be an appropriate Government. 8. In such situation the issues get attracted as to whether complaint made at the instance of Central Government can be maintained? 9. To decide this issue one needs to take notice of the provision as contained in Sec. 12 of the Act which reads as follows :- Section 12. 8. In such situation the issues get attracted as to whether complaint made at the instance of Central Government can be maintained? 9. To decide this issue one needs to take notice of the provision as contained in Sec. 12 of the Act which reads as follows :- Section 12. Cognizance of the trial of the offence :- (I) No Court interior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class shall try any offence punishable under this Act; (II) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act except upon (a) its own knowledge or upon a complaint made by the appropriate Government or an officer authorized by it in this behalf; or (b) a complaint made by the person aggrieved by the offence or by any recognized welfare institution or organization. 10. Here in the instant case as stated above the complaint never seems to have been filled by an appropriate Government or an officer authorized by it and hence order dated 8.10.1998. under which cognizance of the offence has been taken under Section 10 of the Equal Remuneration Act. 1976. against the petitioner being bad is hereby quashed. 11. In the result this application stands allowed. Application allowed.