JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing summoning order dated 29.9.2010, order dated 24.9.2011 fixing the case for putting notice of accusation and criminal proceedings in Case S. Act No. 84-III/2010 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Joginder Nagar. 2. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 had filed a complaint against petitioner alleging that R.P.Rana, Labour Officer, Mandi Zone, inspected UHL Stage-III HEP, Chullah on 28.1.2010 at 1.30 p.m. under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short ‘Act’) and the H.P.Minimum Wages Rules, 1978 (for short ‘Rules’). The Labour Officer found that the petitioner had employed 18 workers. It has been alleged that the contractor did not maintain workers record/register. The contractor did not produce for inspection of the record/register on demand of the Labour Officer. The wage slips were not issued to the workers. The abstracts of the Act and Rules were not displayed nor names of inspecting authorities were displayed. The Labour Officer had issued notice dated 1.2.2010 but the employer failed to comply the Act and the Rules. The complainant is authorized by the Labour Commissioner, H.P. to lodge the complaint. The complaint has been filed under Section 18 (2) (3) of the Act. The petitioner has been made accused in the case. 3. It has been stated that learned Judicial Magistrate issued notice to the petitioner without application of mind. The application of the petitioner seeking discharge was wrongly dismissed. The complaint is vague, the allegations in the complaint do not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioner. 4. The Act does not provide inspection by the Labour Officer. The Inspector has been authorized to inspect the work site under Section 19 of the Act. R.P.Rana, Labour Officer, Mandi Zone had no authority to inspect the work site. The alleged inspection carried out by R.P.Rana, Labour Officer was illegal. In addition, no Inspector has been empowered to inspect the work site in terms of Section 19 of the Act. The alleged inspection carried out by R.P.Rana was against the Act. 5. The complaint does not show which parts of the works sites of UHL Stage-III HEP were inspected where violations were found. The complaint only says about the contractor, who was found in violation during alleged inspection at works site. The alleged inspection carried out by R.P.Rana was against the Act. 5. The complaint does not show which parts of the works sites of UHL Stage-III HEP were inspected where violations were found. The complaint only says about the contractor, who was found in violation during alleged inspection at works site. The naming of Project Manager BHEL as accused is against law, no allegations have been made against the petitioner in the complaint. The allegations are only against the contractor. The complaint is time barred. The complaint against the petitioner is groundless. 6. The notice of inspection dated 28.1.2010 was not given to the petitioner. At the time of alleged inspection, the petitioner was not present on the spot. The proceeding of inspection was not got signed from the petitioner or any representative posted at the work site. The report is bad in law. The Rule 26 B of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 and para materia Rules of the State provide that employer must be intimated regarding the infringement of the Act and the Rules. The employer must be given an opportunity to rectify the infringement. But in the present case, no notice was given to rectify the alleged infringement or defect. The complaint is defective. The Court has erred in taking cognizance. The summoning order has been passed in routine without application of mind. 7. The respondents have filed the reply in which preliminary objection of maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been taken. It has been stated that the petitioner is delaying the proceeding. On merits, it has been stated that the Labour Officer/Inspector has been authorized by the appropriate Government under Section 19 of the Act. The petitioner has not impleaded the concerned Labour Officer, hence petition is not maintainable for want of necessary parties. The petitioner is having control and supervision over the project and he is responsible to follow and implement the Labour Laws including the Act and the Rules. 8. The principal employer has obtained registration of contractor Company under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 wherein the name of the petitioner has been shown. The petitioner is executing the supply and installation services, hydro generating equipments, transformers etc. for UHL Stage-III, HEP. The petitioner has not maintained the statutory record like attendance register, wages register, over-time register and register of employees. The petitioner is executing the supply and installation services, hydro generating equipments, transformers etc. for UHL Stage-III, HEP. The petitioner has not maintained the statutory record like attendance register, wages register, over-time register and register of employees. The petitioner has failed to issue wage slips to the engaged workmen. The authorized inspector has filed the challan in the Court. The work site is at Chullah. 9. It is not mandatory upon the inspecting authority to give prior intimation about the inspections. The notice was served on the petitioner to rectify the defect or infringement and the same has been annexed with the challan filed in the Court. The challan was filed within period of limitation. The inspection was conducted on 28.1.2010 and the challan was submitted in the Court on 24.7.2010. The submission has been made for rejection of the petition. 10. Heard. A copy of the complaint under Section 18 (2) (3) of the Act and Rules 23, 28 (2), 30 has been placed on record. The Section 18 (1) of the Act provides every employer shall maintain such registers and records and in such form as may be prescribed. The Section 18 (2) provides every employer shall keep exhibited, notices in the prescribed form containing prescribed particulars. The Section 18 (3) provides appropriate Government may, by rules made under this Act, for the issue of wage books or wage slips to employees employed in any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed or prescribe the manner in which entries shall be made and authenticated in such wage books or wage slips by the employer or his agent. 11. The Section 19 of the Act provides appointment of inspectors, for the purpose of the Act. The Section 22 provides penalties for certain offences whereas Section 22 A provides general provision for punishment of other offences. The cognizance of offences has been provided in Section 22 B. The Section 30 is the power of appropriate Government to make rules. The appropriate Government has been defined in Section (2) (b) and the employer has been defined in Section (2) (e) and employee in Section (2) (i). The Rule 23 provides publicity to the minimum wage fixed under the Act, Rule 28 (2) is of wage slips and Rule 30 provides for production of registers and other records by employer on demand before the inspector. 12. The Rule 23 provides publicity to the minimum wage fixed under the Act, Rule 28 (2) is of wage slips and Rule 30 provides for production of registers and other records by employer on demand before the inspector. 12. It has been stated in the complaint that R.P.Rana, Labour Officer inspected under the Act works sites UHL Stage-III at Chullah on 28.1.2010 at 1.30 p.m. and found several violations such as workers record/registers were not maintained nor produced for inspection on demand, wage slips were not issued to workers, abstracts of the Act and Rules were not displayed, the names of the inspecting authorities were not displayed. The Labour Officer had issued notice on 1.2.2010 but the employer had failed to comply with the Act and Rules. It has been stated that the complainant has been authorized by the Commissioner to lodge the complaint. The complaint was filed by the Labour Inspector, Joginder Nagar Circle. 13. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that the Act does not provide inspection by Labour Officer, no notice of inspection dated 28.1.2010 was given to the petitioner. The employer was not given an opportunity to rectify the alleged infringement. The allegations are only against the contractor. The complaint is time barred. The Section 19 provides the appropriate Government may by notification in the official gazette appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be the inspectors for the purpose of the Act and define their legal limits. In para 4 (c) of the reply, it has been stated that Labour Officer/Inspector are authorized by the appropriate Government to act under Section 19 of the Act. It is a matter of evidence whether the Labour Officer has been authorized under the Act by the Government. Therefore, in view of the stand of respondent that Labour Officer has been authorized under Section 19 of the Act it cannot be said that inspection carried out by the Labour Officer on 28.1.2010 was without jurisdiction. 14. The substance of the complaint is that the petitioner has not kept various registers, records in accordance with Act and Rules nor required abstracts of the Act and Rules have been displayed, notified as per Act and Rules. It has been stated by respondents that it is not mandatory to issue before notice. 14. The substance of the complaint is that the petitioner has not kept various registers, records in accordance with Act and Rules nor required abstracts of the Act and Rules have been displayed, notified as per Act and Rules. It has been stated by respondents that it is not mandatory to issue before notice. The petitioner has not pointed out any provision that before inspection notice must be given to the employer statutorily. The allegation is also that the relevant registers, records were not produced at the time of inspection. In the complaint, it has been stated that notice was given on 1.2.2010 but the employer has failed to comply with the provisions of the Act and Rules. 15. It has been contended that the allegations in the complaint are against the contractor. The learned Judicial Magistrate has erred in taking cognizance. It has been stated in the reply that principal employer has obtained registration of contractor Company under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 wherein the name of the petitioner has been shown. The petitioner is executing the supply and installation services, hydro generating equipments, transformers etc. for UHL Stage-III, HEP. The word contractor in the complaint is to be construed in the sense it has been used in the complaint. In the complaint it has been stated that notice dated 1.2.2010 was given to the employer, who did not rectify the mistakes. The petitioner has not taken the stand in the petition that petitioner has not employed any employee at the work sites of UHL Stage-III HEP nor it is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is not controlling/supervising officer of any employee at UHL Stage-III, HEP. 16. The inspection was carried out on 28.1.2010 and the complaint was filed on 24.7.2010. The Section 22 B (2) (b) provides limitation of six months for filing the complaint under Section 22 A of the Act. The violations of the Act and Rules were detected on 28.1.2010 and the complaint has been filed on 24.7.2010 in the Court within six months. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complaint is time barred. 17. In State of Haryana and others v. Ch. The violations of the Act and Rules were detected on 28.1.2010 and the complaint has been filed on 24.7.2010 in the Court within six months. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complaint is time barred. 17. In State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 SC 604 , the Supreme Court has identified the categories where power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised, which are as follows:- “1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and /or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and /or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 18. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and /or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 18. On the basis of material on record, it cannot be said that the case of the petitioner falls in any of the category enumerated above. It cannot be said that the learned Judicial Magistrate has erred in issuing process to the petitioner under Sections 18 (2) (3) of the Act and Rules 23, 28 (2) and 30. There is no merit in the petition which is dismissed. The pending application, if any, is also disposed of.