Karnataka High Court
Sri Jagannatha S Shetty vs State Of Karnataka on 13 November, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3987 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
SRI JAGANNATHA S SHETTY,
S/O SUNDER SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI NIDHI GOLD,
V.V.ROAD,
MANDYA. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DEVIPRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE
LABOUR INSPECTOR,
1ST CIRCLE, 1ST CROSS,
BANDAGOWDA EXTENSION,
MANDYA. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)
****
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT: 25.03.11
IN C.C.NO.297/11 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. C.J.,
(JR.DN.) MANDYA PRODUCED HERETO AS ANNEXURED-A.
QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.297/11 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.C.J. (JR.DN.) MANDYA.
2
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCE AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 25.03.2011 in C.C.No.297/2011 pending on the file of Additional Munsiff and JMFC, Mandya, for the offence punishable under Section 20(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
2. The facts leading to this petition are that on 12.11.2010 the complainant Labour Inspector conducted the inspection in the shop of the petitioner and found certain irregularities, lapses in maintaining the registers and other concerned records required to be maintained under the provisions of Karnataka Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1963 and submitted inspection report and sought explanation from the petitioner regarding certain violations under the provisions of Karnataka Shops and Commercial 3 Establishments Act, 1961. The petitioner gave reply to the said report stating that the petitioner has not violated any of the provisions of either Karnataka Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1963 or the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 and also submitted that the petitioner's establishment does not found within the purview of the said Acts. On receiving the reply from the petitioner the complainant has issued a show cause notice dated 23.11.2010 and sought explanation regarding the violations found in the inspection report. Surprisingly the petitioner was served with a notice dated 15.12.2010 wherein it was stated that action was being taken under The Minimum Wages Act, 1948. But the said notice did not specify any violation of the said Act. The petitioner got legal notice issued to the respondent reiterating the replies given earlier. Based on the inspection report the complainant filed a private complaint dated 24.03.2011 under Section 20(3) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and 4 under Section 13(1)(2)and (6) of the Rules. On the basis of the said complaint the learned Magistrate has filed a petition.
3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the records.
4. The first and the foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act or Minimum Wages Act and Shops and Commercial Establishments Act are not applicable to his shop establishment as there is no violation whatsoever as alleged in the complaint. The private complaint is filed with an intention to harass the petitioner. The procedure prescribed has not been followed by the complainant Labour Inspector before filing the private complaint, as such, the order passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained in law. 5
5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that there is prima facie case against the petitioner and there are no valid grounds to quash the proceedings.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader this Court has gone through the records of the trial Court as well as the records furnished by the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that on 12.11.2010 the petitioner has conducted the inspection and has submitted a report on noticing certain irregularities and violation of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and Shops and Commercial Establishments Act for which the petitioner has given reply.
7. As could be seen from the records on 12.11.2010 the Labour Inspector after inspecting the shop premises of the petitioner has issued a notice to the petitioner informing about certain lapses on the part of the 6 petitioner in displaying the holiday or list of the festivals on which the holidays will be declared and annual report in Form No.5 and non production of report in form No.6 etc., for which the petitioner has given reply. On receiving the said reply the complainant Labour Inspector has issued the show cause notice dated 23.11.2010 wherein the violation of the provisions under the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act and Minimum Wages Act, Payment of Wages Act and the Equal Remuneration Act have been mentioned. The petitioner has given reply through his legal notice dated 21.12.2010. Thereafter the complainant Labour Inspector has filed a private complaint under Section 20(3) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
8. Section 20(3) and Section 20(4) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 reads as under:
20. Penalty for offences under the Act-
XXXXXXX 7 (3) Whoever being required under this Act to maintain any records or registers or to furnish any information or return-
(a) fails to maintain such register or record, or
(b) willfully refuses or without lawful excuse neglects to furnish such information or return,
(c) willfully furnishes or causes to be furnished any information or return which he knows to be false; or
(d) refuses to answer or willfully gives a false answer to any question necessary for obtaining any information required to be furnished under this Act.
Shall, for each such offence, be punishable with fine, (with fine which shall not be less than one thousand five hundred rupees 8 but which may extend to seven thousand five hundred rupees).
(4) Whoever,
(a) Willfully obstructs an Inspector in the discharge of his duties under this Act, or
(b) refuses or willfully neglects to afford an Inspector any reasonable facility, for making any entry, inspection, examination, supervision, or inquiry authorized by or under this Act in relation to any railway factory or (Industrial or other establishment) or
(c) willfully refuses to produce on the demand of an Inspector any register or other document kept in pursuance of this Act; or
(d) prevents or attempts to prevent or does anything which he has any reason to believe is likely to prevent any person from appearing before or being examined by an Inspector acting in pursuance of his duties 9 under this Act, shall be punishable with fine (with fine which shall not be less than one thousand five hundred rupees but which may extend to seven thousand five hundred rupees)."
9. The records produced by the petitioner at Annexures 'A' to 'H' discloses that the complainant has conducted the inspection and has submitted the report. On receiving the reply from the petitioner he has also issued a show cause notice for which the petitioner has given reply through his counsel calling upon the complainant Labour Inspector to withdraw the notice dated 15.12.2010 and also to drop the proceedings under Minimum Wages Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out specific grounds as to how the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act are not applicable to his shop establishment and also to prove that the complainant Labour Inspector has not followed the 10 procedure prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act or any other provisions. The averments made in the private complaint reveals that on conducting the inspection and furnishing of inspection report and show cause notice, the complainant has filed a private complaint as the petitioner failed to produce the necessary records and the registers before the complainant Labour Officer. It is evident that in view of violation of Section 20(3) of Minimum Wages Act complaint has been filed. The petitioner has not made out any grounds to show that the learned Magistrate has not followed the procedure prescribed in taking cognizance or issuance of process. Under these circumstances, there are no valid grounds to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following -
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ykl