Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 744 (JHR)

Reddy Veeranna v. State of Jharkhand

2013-06-26

R.R.PRASAD

body2013
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of GOCR case no.25 of 2011 including the order dated 13.10.2011 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 22(A) of the Minimum Wages Act has been taken against the petitioner and others. 3. The case of the complainant as it appears from the complaint petition is that when the opposite party no.2, Labour Enforcement Officer-cum-Inspector of Minimum Wages, Sundarpahari made an inspection at the works site , the work was being executed by a company known as M/s. Reddy Veerana Construction Pvt. Ltd. to which this petitioner is the Managing Director. It was found that less wages are being given to its workers who were executing the work. The spot registers showing payment of the minimum wages to the workers and also the wage slips were not found there. At the same time, they had not maintained the attendance register which were in violation of Rule 26(1), Rule 26(2) and Rule 26(5) of the Minimum Wages Rules punishable under Section 14(1) of the Minimum Wages Act. 4. On such complaint, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 14(1) of the Minimum Wages Act was taken against the petitioner vide order dated 13.10.2011 which is under challenge. 5. Mr. Majumdar, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on the allegation of contravention of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and Rules by M/s.Reddy Veeranna Construction Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, who is the Managing Director of the Company is being prosecuted under the Minimum Wages Act though there has been absolutely no allegation that this petitioner was responsible to or was In-charge of day-do-day affairs of the Company and, thereby the order taking cognizance suffers from illegality. 6. It was further submitted that the Company has not been made accused and in absence of the Company being made accused, the petitioner, who is the Director of the Company cannot be prosecuted. 7. In support of his submission, learned counsel has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat and others [ (2008) 5 SCC 668 ]. 8. 7. In support of his submission, learned counsel has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat and others [ (2008) 5 SCC 668 ]. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that on inspection being made, it was found that certain rules of the Minimum Wages Rules have been violated by the Company known as M/s.Reddy Veeranna Construction Pvt. Ltd. to which this petitioner is the Managing Director but the prosecution has not come forward with a case that the petitioner was responsible to or In-charge of day-to-day affairs of the Company, still the petitioner is being prosecuted which in view of the provision as contained in Section 22-C(1) of the Minimum Wages Act would be quite illegal. The said provision reads as follows: “ If the person committing any offence under this Act is a Company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in-charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly; Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. 9. From its perusal, it is apparent that apart from the Company any employee including the Director of the Company would be liable to be prosecuted if that person is responsible to or was In-charge of the company for the conduct of the business of the Company. 10. Here, in the instant case, no such averment seems to be there in the complaint that this petitioner was In-charge of or responsible to the affairs of the Company. 11. In such situation, the Director of the Company in absence of such averment cannot be prosecuted. In that event, the order dated 13.10.2011 under which cognizance of the offence has been taken against the petitioner certainly appears to be bad. Accordingly, it is set aside. 12. In the result, this application stands allowed. Application allowed.