Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2017
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5397 OF 2017
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5398 OF 2017
IN CRL.P.No.5397 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, (KSRTC)
CHIKMAGALUR DIVISION
CHIKMAGALUR
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
BENGALURU METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORT CORPORATION (B.M.T.C.)
CENTRAL OFFICES,
K.H. ROAD SHANTHI NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027.
REP. BY T.R.NAVEEN.
PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJEEV B L, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SENIOR LABOUR INSPECTOR
II CIRCLE, CHIKMAGALUR
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SANDESH J CHOUTA, SPP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
03.04.2017 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
CHIKKAMAGALURU IN C.C.No.887/2011 AND QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.No.887/2011 WHICH IS PENDING
ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
CHIKKAMAGALURU.
IN CRL.P.No.5398 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, (KSRTC)
CHIKMAGALUR DIVISION
CHIKMAGALUR
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
BENGALURU METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORT CORPORATION (BMTC)
CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD
SHANTHI NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027.
REP. BY T.R.NAVEEN.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJEEV B L, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SENIOR LABOUR INSPECTOR
II CIRCLE, CHIKMAGALUR
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SANDESH J CHOUTA, SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
3
03.04.2017 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
CHIKKAMAGALURU IN C.C.No.886/2011 AND QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.No.886/2011 WHICH IS PENDING
ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
CHIKKAMAGALURU.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY , THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These two petitions are presented by the Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, who has been arraigned as accused No.1 in C.C.Nos.886/2011 and 887/2011. Proceedings have been initiated on the basis of the complaint filed under Section 22 B of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, alleging thereunder that accused persons had committed the offence punishable under Sections 22 B of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, viz., accused have failed to maintain prescribed Registers, Salary Slips and other prescribed documents as prescribed under the Minimum Wages (Central Rules) 1951.
2. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner Sri. B.L.Sanjeev and Sri. 4 Sandesh Chouta, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, records disclose that petitioner had entered into an agreement with M/s. Cosmopolitan Industrial Security and Detective Services Private Limited and M/s. Sri. Laxmi Enterprises, for the purpose of providing security and house keeping respectively at the bus station at Chikmagalur. Under the said agreements, second party therein, viz., outsourced agencies were required to comply with the statutory requirements, viz., maintenance, up-keeping and production of the Registers as prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, apart from other statutory liabilities arising thereunder and as agreed to there under.
3. Senior Labour Inspector, Chikmagalur, after having visited the premises of the accused persons found that said registers were not duly maintained by the accused persons. In other words, it has been alleged in the complaint lodged before the jurisdictional 5 Magistrate that accused No.1 as the principal employer is also vicariously liable for non maintenance of said registers by Accused 2 and 3.
4. On process being issued to the accused persons, accused No.2 appeared and pleaded guilty. Hence, jurisdictional Magistrate by order dated 3.1.2012 had convicted accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 18(1), 18(3) read with Rule 29(2) and 29(5) and has sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each with default sentence of 10 days simple Imprisonment and for the offence punishable under Rule 30, accused No.2 had been convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- with default sentence of 5 days simple imprisonment in C.C.No.886/2011. Likewise, accused No.3 also pleaded guilty and fine has been imposed by the order dated 19.2.2013. It is stated that both accused Nos. 2 and 3 have deposited the fine amounts.
6
6. Insofar as C.C.No.887/2011 is concerned, accused No.2 had pleaded guilty and had been convicted and sentenced to pay total fine of Rs.600/- and it is said to have been paid, for which, an endorsement is also found in the order sheet of the Trial Court dated 19.2.2013.
7. In the light of the aforestated facts it would disclose that accused Nos. 2 and 3 who were supposed to deploy the security guards at Chikamagalur station and also provide house keeping at the bus station having pleaded guilty for the offence punishable under Section 22 B of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, continuation of further proceedings in so far as petitioner, viz., accused No.1 would not sub serve the ends of justice. In other words, as the principal employer though vicariously liable, the agreement entered into between the principal employer and accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the respective cases disclosing 7 that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were required to maintain the registers and they have pleaded guilty of the offences alleged against them, viz., in not maintaining the registers and fine also having paid, this Court is of the view that, continuation of further proceedings against the petitioner would be abuse of process of law and this view is also fortified by the judgment in the case of Niroop Mahanty and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in 2005 AIR Jharkhand R 76, wherein, it came to be held that:
"Principal employer cannot be construed as an employer as defined under Section 2(e) of the Minimum Wages Act and Minimum Wages Rules, 1951, so as to provide penal provision for non observance of provisions of Sections 12(1) or 18 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Minimum Wages Rules, 1951.
8. The principles enunciated therein would be squarely applicable to the facts on hand and as such, 8 continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would not sub serve the ends of justice.
9. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petitions are hereby allowed;
(ii) Proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.Nos.886/2011 and 887/2011 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikamaglur, are hereby quashed;
(iii) Petitioner in both the cases viz.,
C.C.Nos.886/2011 and 887/2011 are
hereby acquitted of the offences
punishable under Section 22 B of
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and
Minimum Wages (Central Rules) 1951.
Sd/-
JUDGE tsn*