Bangalore District Court
State By Senior Labour Inspector vs Sri.Gopinath Reddy P on 28 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC
COURT - VI, BENGALURU CITY.
C.C. No.812/2011
Dated: This the 28th day of January, 2016.
Present : Smt.Lavanya H.N., B.Sc.,LL.B
P.O. of MMTC-VI, Bengaluru.
Complainant : State by Senior Labour Inspector,
23rd Circle, Karmika Bhavana,
Bangalore-29.
V/s
Accused : Sri.Gopinath Reddy P.
B.B.M.P.Ward No.50,
06, Behind Sandya Theatre,
Old Madiwala, Bengaluru-68.
JUDGMENT
Senior Labour Inspector, 23rd Circle, Bengaluru has presented this complaint U/s 200 of Cr.P.C. r/w Sec.22(B) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (herein after it is referred as the Act, 1948, ) alleging that the accused has committed the offences punishable U/s 22 (A) of the Act, 1948.
The brief facts of complaint are as under :
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused is a contractor of Ward No.50, who has been employed by the Commissioner of BBMP, Bengaluru as such he is a Contractor.2 CC.No.812/2011
The accused comes within the definition of Employer as defined under section Sec. 2(h) of the Act, 1948. The contract labor works under taken by the accused comes within the meaning of scheduled establishment under the Act, 1948.
3. It is further case of the prosecution that on 02.08.2011 at about 10.30 a.m. the complainant has visited Ward No.50 and made inspection under the Act, 1948 and other Labour Acts wherein he has noticed that the accused has violated the rules and regulations of Labour Laws. It is further case of the complainant that during his inspection he has noticed the following violations under the Act, 1948 and the Minimum Wages Rules (hereinafter it is referred as the Rules) that: The accused has failed to maintain combined register as per prescribed in Form No.T and has failed to produce during inspection as such he has violated section 18 of the Act, 1948 and Rule 24(9)© of the Rules. The accused has violated section 18 of the Act, 1948 and Rule 29(2) of the Rules as he has not issued wage slip in Form No.vi to his labourer. The accused has failed to exhibit summary of Minimum Wages Act and Rules in form No.x of the Minimum Wages Act as such the accused has violated section 18 of the Act, 1948 and Rule 23 of the Rules. The accused has failed to maintain register of inspection and has also failed to produce at the time of inspection as such he has violated section 18 of the Act, 1948 and Rule 30 of the Rules. The accused has failed to exhibit the particulars of weekly holiday, date, time of payment of 3 CC.No.812/2011 wages in form No.xiii as such he has violated section 18 of the Act, 1948 and Rule 30(a) of the Rules. The accused has failed to produce the documents of labour at the time of inspection as such he has violated section 18 of the Act, 1948 and Rule 29(B) of the Rules.
4. It is further case of the Complainant that at the time of the inspection he has noticed the aforesaid violations and the same has been recorded spot itself and thereafter, he has recorded the statement of the labourers who present therein. One Murali who is supervisor under the accused refused to sign the report. As such, he has issued the show-cause notice calling upon the accused to produce the documents before him within seven days from the date of receipt of notice and submit compliance report. Inspite of it the accused has not produced the documents maintained by him and has failed to comply with the direction/observation made by the Complainant. Hence, the present complaint.
5. After presenting the Complaint, cognizance was taken of the offence punishable U/s 22(A) of the Act, 1948. As Complainant is a Government Servant, recording of the sworn statement has been dispensed with. As prima-facie case has been made out against the accused, the present complaint came to be registered as Criminal Case and thereafter, process has been issued to the accused.
4 CC.No.812/20116. In pursuance of the process the accused caused his appearance through Advocate and he has got enlarged on bail. Copies of the Complaint and other documents have been supplied to the accused as required U/s 207 of Cr.P.C.
7. Substance of accusation has been read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the case is posted for Prosecution evidence.
8. In order to establish its case Complainant has got himself examined as PW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 7 and closed its side. (Originals of Ex.P.2 to 7 have been marked in CC No.814/2011)
9. After completion of evidence on behalf of complainant, all the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused has been read over and explained to him who has denied the same. Accordingly, the Statement of the accused has been recorded U/s 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. In defense the accused has not adduced either oral or documentary evidence. But, Ex.D1 and 2 have been marked through PW-1 during his cross-examination.
10. I have heard the arguments and perused the materials available on record. The following points that would arise for consideration:
5 CC.No.812/20111. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused being an appointed contractor of Ward No.50 of BBMP, Bangalore has committed the offences punishable U/s 22 (A) of the Act, 1948?
2. What order?
11. The findings to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative;
Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
REASONS POINT No.1:
12. The Complainant, PW-1 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 02.08.2011 at about 10.30 a.m. he has visited Ward No.50 and made inspection and recorded statement of contract laborers as per Ex.P3 to 5 and also directed one Murali who is working as supervisor under the accused to produce the documents and registers. But, he has failed to produce the registers and documents. In this regard he has prepared Inspection Report at Ex.P.2. But, the said Murali has refused to on sing the Inspection Report at Ex.P.2. But, the carbon copy of the said Ex.P.2 has been provided to the said Murali calling upon him to produce the registers and documents and also calling upon him to rectify the violations noticed by him and submit compliance report within seven days. But, neither said Murali nor accused has produced the registers and has failed to submit the compliance report within 7 days. As such, on 30.08.2011 he has issued the show-cause notice as per Ex.P.6 through speed 6 CC.No.812/2011 post calling upon the accused to produce the documents before him within the seven days from the date of receipt of notice and submit compliance report. Inspite of it the accused has not produced the documents maintained by him and has failed to comply with the direction/observation made by the Complainant. Hence, he has filed complaint at Ex.P.1.
13. PW-1 has been subjected to cross-examination by the defense at length. It is specific defense of the accused that false case has been lodged against the accused though the complainant has not visited the spot as alleged by him. It is further defense of the accused that he has maintained the combined muster roll cum-register of wages as per the law which has been produced before the Higher Officer of the Complainant and the same has been brought to the notice of the Complainant also. Inspite of it the Complainant has filed the false case against the accused. It is further contended that no show-cause notice has been served to the accused.
14. It is not in dispute that accused is the appointed Contractor of Ward No.50 of BBMP. According to the complainant the accused has not maintained the registers which are required to be maintained by him.
15. The Complainant in his evidence has deposed that he has recorded the statement of the laborers who are working under the accused. In this case none of the laborers have been examined 7 CC.No.812/2011 by the Complainant to support his version that he has visited Ward No.50 and has recorded the Statements of Laborers who are working under the accused and laborers have been paid less amount and the accused has violated the provisions of the Act, 1948 and the Rules. Further, there is no hurdle for the Complainant to adduce the evidence of the laborers who are working under the accused, who have alleged to be given statement as per Ex.P-3 to 5. Under these circumstances, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has violated the provisions of the Act, 1948 and Rules. Hence, point No.1 is answered in the negative.
POINT No.2:
16. In view of finding on point No.1, this Court proceeds to pass the following :
ORDER Acting U/s 255 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, accused is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 22 (b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
Bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by him, revised corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of January, 2016) (Smt.Lavanya H.N.) P.O. OF MMTC-VI, BENGALURU.8 CC.No.812/2011
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW-1 : Yashodhara C.N. Documents Exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P-1 : Complaint, Ex.P-2 : Copy of Notice,
Ex.P-3 to 5 : Copies of Statements of labourers, Ex.P-6 : Copy of Show Cause Notice, Ex.P-7 : Copy of Postal Receipt.
Witness examined for the defense : Nil.
Documents exhibited for the defense : Ex.D-1 and 2 : Combined muster role cum wages registers.
P.O. of MMTC-VI, Bengaluru City.