Karnataka High Court
D.Shesha Reddy S/O D. Chenchu Rami Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 7 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 2161, 2020 (1) AKR 571
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100699/2019
BETWEEN
D. Shesha Reddy S/o D. Chenchu Rami Reddy,
Aged 77 years, Chairman of Dodla Diary Limited,
R/o. 18, Bishopawallace Avenur (West),
Mylapore, Madras-600 004,
Company Address M/s. Dodla Diary Limited,
Indargi, District Koppal.
... Petitioner
(By Shri Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath, Advocate)
And:
State of Karnataka,
Through Incharge Labour Inspector,
Koppal Circle, Koppal,
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bench at Dharwad.
... Respondent
(By Shri Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
seeking to quash the entire proceedings against petitioner in
C.C.No.1033/2018 pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge
and JMFC Court, Koppal, so also the order dated 11.08.2018
taking cognizance of offences punishable under Section 22 of
Contract Labour Act, 1948.
This criminal petition coming on for admission this day,
the Court made the following:
:2:
ORDER
Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.1033/2018 pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal so also the order dated 11.08.2018 taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 22 of Contract Labour Act, 1948 (For short Minimum Wages Act, 1948).
3. The petitioner herein is the Chairman of Dodla Diary Limited, Indargi, District Koppal and the same is a Public Limited Company, having its office at Hyderabad City of Telangana State. The Company has its units at various States and one such unit was started in Koppal during 2014. The Company had engaged contractors for the purpose of packaging, loading, unloading, housekeeping and for security services. In this regard, the Assistant Labour Commissioner has issued certificate of :3: registration. The other contention is that the respondent is said to have visited the premises of Dodla Diary Limited at Koppal and found that there is violation of the provisions of Minimum Wages Act and Rules and during the aforesaid visit, he is said to have informed the Assistant Manager of the Company about the violation done by the Contractors engaged by the Company and gave a report to the contractors by taking acknowledgement and calling upon them to furnish the required records to proceed further.
4. It is further contended that pursuant to the report, he is alleged to have issued a show cause notice to the contractor and the contractor did not respond to the said show cause notice. Subsequently, the Labour Inspector filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate and the same is now pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal. The petitioner after coming to know about the cognizance being taken against him, he approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1033/2018 and so also the order :4: dated 11.08.2018 taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 22 of the Contract Labour Act, 1948.
5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner is bad in law and so also it amounts to abuse of process and no offence is made out against this petitioner and learned Magistrate has failed to consider that the impugned complaint, which is filed by the Labour Inspector, Koppal is defective in nature and the petitioner cannot be made liable in his individual capacity, since the company is not arraigned as accused in the impugned complaint.
6. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 22A of the Contract Labour Act, 1948 and second page of the order sheet goes to show that it is the offence punishable under Section 22A of the Contract Labour Act. If cognizance is under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, limitation is only for three months. Hence, the complaint :5: itself is barred by limitation. The very order of the trial Court is vague and has taken the cognizance without verifying the offence being committed by the accused. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of Jharkand High Court in the case of Niroop Mohanty vs. State of Jharkhand reported in LAWS (JHAR) 2004-10-6, wherein it is held that there is no concept of principal employer as per Section 2(e) of Minimum Wages Act, which defines that the employer means no person who employs whether directly or through any person, or whether on behalf of himself or any person, one or more employees in any schedule employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under the said Act. In the instant petition, show cause notice has been issued against the Manager of the aforesaid Company and the complaint has been initiated by the Labour Inspector before the learned Magistrate, but the Company has not been made as a party to the proceedings. On all these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to quash the entire proceedings initiated against him.
:6:
7. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent - State has taken me through the scope and object of Section 190 of Cr.P.C. It states that any Magistrate of the First Class and any Magistrate of the Second Class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-Section (2), may take cognizance of any offence. But the complaint has been initiated by the Labour Inspector, Koppal for violation of the relevant provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and based upon the complaint, the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance of offence under Section 22 of the Contract Labour Act, 1948, in its order dated 11.08.2018. Mere because the Company has not made as a party to the proceedings, it cannot be said that the entire cognizance taken by the Court below completely vitiates the proceedings. He further contends that the final notice was issued and the proceedings were initiated within the period of issuance of final notice and hence, the proceedings cannot be quashed and prays that the petition be dismissed.
:7:
8. Having regard to the strenuous contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State, it is relevant to state that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate, Koppal is contrary to the provisions of Section 22 of the Contract Labour Act, 1948 and the other contention with regard to the Company i.e., Dodla Diary Limited has not been arraigned as party to the proceedings; these are the two grounds which are urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically. The contention that the respondent is not a firm and the petitioner has violated the Act and Rules. The offence is invoked under Section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act and the Court below has taken cognizance under Section 22A of the Contract Labour Act and the very complaint and taking cognizance is inconsistent. The contention that when the contractors are engaged for supply of labourers, there cannot be any law on the principle and in the judgment of Jharkand High Court, referred to supra, there is no concept of principal employer as per definition under Section 2(e) of the Minimum Wages Act, which defines that the "employer" :8: means any person who employs whether directly or through another person, or whether on behalf of himself or any other person, one or more employees in any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act. Hence, they are not the employer as defined under Section 2(e) of the Minimum Wages Act and Rules. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the company is not made as a party to the proceedings, it is mandatory while initiating the proceedings against any of the Director of the Company to make a company as party to the proceedings and on perusal of the complaint, the company is not made as a party to the proceedings and on that ground also the complaint is liable to be quashed and in terms of the aforesaid reasons and findings. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is herby allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.1033/2018 pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal so also the order :9: dated 11.08.2018 taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 22 of the Contract Labour Act, 1948 is hereby quashed.
SD/-
JUDGE Vnp*