Jharkhand High Court
Niroop Mohanty And Anr. And A.K. ... vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 5 October, 2004
Equivalent citations: [2005(1)JCR37(JHR)], (2005)IILLJ207JHAR
Author: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
ORDER
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.
1. All these applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been preferred by the two sets of petitioners. The petitioners Niroop Mohanty and Arun Narayan Singh are petitioners in Cr MP Nos. 109/2004, 110/ 2004 and 113/2004 whereas A.K. Choudhary is the petitioner in Cr MP No. 151 of 2004. The petitioners are the Vice President of H.R.M., Deputy Managing Director, Corporate Service and Head of H.R./IR, Tube Division of Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. (for short TISCO').
2. In Cr MP No. 109/2004 the petitioners have challenged the order dated 19.12.2002 passed in C/2 Case No. 4101/2002, whereby and whereunder, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 against the petitioners and one Imamuddin Khan. In Cr MP No. 110/2004 the petitioners have challenged the order dated 19th December, 2002 passed in C/2 Case No. 4102/2002 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and one Asgar Khan. In Cr MP No. 113/2004 the petitioners have challenged the order dated 2.1.2003 passed in C/2 Case No. 5/2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners and one Ravi Kumar under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The other case being Cr MP No. 151/2004 has been preferred by petitioner, A. K. Choudhary against the order dated 2.1.2003 passed in C/2 Case No. 11/2003 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and two others for the offence punishable under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
3. In all the cases main plea taken by the petitioners is that the TISCO is not the principal employer of the workmen. The work is being performed by the contractors. In respect to C/2 case No. 11/2003 it is stated that the contractor is one M/s. Imamuddin Khan of Jamshedpur; in C/2 Case No. 4102/2002 the contractor is M/s. Asgar Khan of Jamshedpur; in C/2 case No. 05/2003 one M/s. V.R. Construction is the contractor whereas in C/2 Case No. 11/2003 M/s. Raj Kumar and Company is the contractor of TISCO.
4. It was submitted that the petitioners were not required to maintain register in Forms I and II i.e. register of fine and register of deduction of damages or loss caused to the employer, being the employee of TISCO and not being the employer of workmen. On behalf of TISCO the petitioners were also not liable to display the minimum rate of wages at the site as required under Minimum Wages Rules. No register showing the over time payment was required to maintain by petitioners as all these jobs were to be performed by the contractor under whom the workmen were performing their duties.
5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioners that they have violated the provisions and Rules, The establishments of the contractors were inspected they being the employers of the workmen in respect of whose non-compliance of the Minimum Wages Act and Rules thereunder has been alleged.
6. It appears that a number of cases were preferred on similar ground against the petitioners, Niroop Mohanty and Arun Narayan Singh under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In all those cases similar plea was taken. In Cr MP No. 1383 of 2003 petitioners Niroop Mohanty and Arun Narayan Sing challenged the order dated 2.1.2003 passed in C/2 Case No. 06/2003, whereby and whereunder, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur had taken cognizance of offence punishable under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948) In the said case similar plea was taken by these petitioners as taken in the present cases. A Bench of this Court vide its order dated 22.9.2004 on hearing the parties and on going through the material available on record held that the irregularities were found in the establishment of the contractors which were inspected in presence of the representatives of the contractors. The prosecution report also specifically refers to the contractors/employers under the Minimum Wages Act and there is no concept of principal employer as per definition under Section 2(e) of the Minimum Wages Act which defines that the employer 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 the Act. The Court thereby held that the petitioners, Niroop Mohanty and Arun Narayan Singh are not the employers as defined under Section 2(e) of the Minimum Wages Act and Minimum Wages Rules, 1951 for observance or non-observance of the provisions of Section 12(1) or 18 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Minimum Wages Rules, 1951 and set aside the order taking cognizance.
7, Counsel appearing on behalf of State submitted that the TISCO is the principal employer of the workmen, the contractors having engaged by the TISCO. The TISCO is taking work from the workmen through the contractors. But in view of the decision rendered by this Court on 22nd September, 2004 in Cr MP No. 1383/2003 this submission cannot be accepted. In the said case the Court held that there is no concept of principal employer as defined under Section 2(e) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
8. In the facts and circumstances, the orders taking cognizance dated 19.12.2002 passed in C/2 Case No. 4101/2002 and C/2 Case No. 4102/2002; dated 2.1.2003 passed in C/2 Case No. 05/2003 and C/2 Case No. 11/2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur are set aside.
All these applications are disposed of.