Karnataka High Court
Sri Rajendra Gopalakrishna vs State Of Karnataka on 30 March, 2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2016
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR
W.P.NO.10820 OF 2016(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:-
SRI. RAJENDRA GOPALAKRISHNA
(WRONGLY MENTIONED AS
SRI. RAJAGOPAL KRISHNA
IN THE COMPLAINT IN C C NO.1660/2014)
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O SRI. A V GOPALAKRISHNA
R/AT 131/4, NELAGULI VILLAGE
BOLARE POST, KANAKAPURA ROAD
BANGALORE 560082.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT: ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADV.,)
AND:-
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE SENIOR LABOUR INSPECTOR
5TH CIRCLE, KARMIKA BHAVANA
BANGALORE DAIRY CIRCLE
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BANGALORE 560029.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: NAZRULLA KHAN, HCGP)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. 1973
PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DTD. 2.8.2014 IN CC
NO.1660/2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
2
LEARNED METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC-I COURT,
MAYO HALL, BANGALORE, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 20 OF THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936,
AND THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED PURSUANT TO THE SAME.
(ANNX-A).
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w 482 Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the order dated 2.8.2014 in C.C.No.1660/2014 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall, Bangalore produced at Annexure-A.
2. The respondent-Senior Labour Inspector filed a private complaint against the petitioner in C.C.No.1660/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
3. The submission of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was an employee of the company as required under Section 2(f) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Further, there is no averment in the 3 complaint to show that the petitioner was incharge of and was responsible for the day-to-day conduct of the business of the company and in the absence of the aforesaid averments to that effect in the complaint, the complaint filed against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. It is also submitted that the complaint filed on 2.8.2014 is barred by limitation.
4. As rightly submitted by learned Senior counsel, there is no averment in the complaint to the effect that the petitioner was incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the day-in-day business of the company. He was not the Director of C.A. Technologies nor he held that position at any time. His designation was 'Distinguished Engineer'. Further, he resigned from C.A. Technologies on 21.8.2015. In that case, the petitioner cannot be held responsible and answerable to the charges levelled against him, he being an employee. The complainant if at all can proceed against the person, who was incharge of and was responsible for the day- to-day conduct of business of the company. Further the inspection was made on 20.2.2014, the show-cause notice 4 was issued on 7.4.2014 and complaint is filed on 2.8.2014 which is barred by limitation.
5. Hence, the petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner in C.C.No.1660/2014 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall, Bangalore is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *mn/-