ORDER : In this application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Case No. C/7 – 02 of 2007 including the order dated 16.01.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa by virtue of which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act. 2. The prosecution story as would appear from the complaint petition is that the complainant had investigated the premises of M/s. Reliance Next Link Private Limited and had found several irregularities which is in violation of the Rules framed under the Minimum Wages Act and he thus punishable under Section 22 (A) of the Minimum Wages Act. 3. Heard Mr. S. K. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 29.07.2006 inspection was carried out under the Minimum Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) at the Base Transmission Station (BTS) at Madhubazar, Chaibasa, pursuant to which an inspection report cum show cause was directed to be given from the petitioner No. 1 Company to rectify the irregularities. Though a reply was submitted to the effect that the nature of operation of BTS does not require any regular deployment of manpower as such the subject activity does not come within the meaning of Section 2(g) read with Section 27 of the Act. Learned counsel further submits that the Central Government is not the appropriate Government in respect to the establishment in question, rather the appropriate Government in that respect is the State Government. It has also been submitted that the complainant has never been authorized as an Inspector under the Act as no notification is on the record to suggest otherwise. Learned counsel further adds that the petitioner No. 1 is the Company and the petitioner No. 2 is the Senior Officer of the Company and the prosecution is totally silent as to how he is connected with the affairs of BTS at Madhubazar, Chaibasa. It has therefore, been submitted that the entire criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5. Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. It has therefore, been submitted that the entire criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5. Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has stated that since at the work place various irregularities were committed by the petitioners under the Act the Complaint Case has rightly been instituted. It has further been submitted that the petitioners were involved in the maintenance of electrical lines and laying down underground Telephone cable, as such the same comes within the definition of a 'scheduled employment'. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner No. 1 had made an application for registration of the establishment employing contract labour and which was granted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central, Ranchi as such the petitioners cannot claim that the appropriate Government with respect to the establishment of the petitioners is the State Government. It has also been submitted that the complainant has been notified to be an Inspector under Section 98 of the Act and as such it was perfectly legal for him to file the complaint petition after sanction was obtained from the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Central, Dhanbad on 09.01.2007. 6. It has been strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant was not authorized to institute a complaint and there was no sanction obtained by the opposite party No. 2 to prosecute the petitioners which have been controverted by the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. From the reply which has been filed by the petitioners to the counter affidavit , it appears that neither any sanction order has been filed along with the complaint petition nor any notification to suggest that the complainant was appointed by the appropriate Government as an Inspector in terms of Section 19 of the Act. Section 22(B) of the Act relates to cognizance of offences and it specifically lays down than no court shall take cognizance of a complaint against any person for an offence under Clause (b) of Section 22 or Section 22-A except on a complaint made by, or with the sanction of, an Inspector. Section 22-B (i)(b) does, therefore, mandate that prior to filing cognizance there has to be a sanction and the complaint has to be made by an Inspector. Section 22-B (i)(b) does, therefore, mandate that prior to filing cognizance there has to be a sanction and the complaint has to be made by an Inspector. Section 19 of the Act lays down that the appropriate Government may by notification in the official Gazette appoint such persons as it thinks fit as Inspectors for the purpose of this Act. Although it has been pleaded in the counter affidavit with respect to grant of prior sanction and also of the complainant as Inspector in terms of Section 19 of the Act but it is an admitted fact that neither the sanction order nor the notification appointing the complainant as an Inspector was ever produced before the learned court below along with complaint petition prior to taking cognizance. The pre-requisite for taking of cognizance as envisaged under Section 22-B of the Act having not been followed the criminal prosecution as against the petitioners cannot be allowed to continue. 7. In such circumstance, therefore, I find sufficient reasons to allow this application. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Case No. C/7 – 02 of 2007 including the order dated 16.01.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa for the offences punishable under Section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act is quashed and set aside.