Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

V Sekhar vs Senior Labor Inspector on 17 December, 2020

Author: Suraj Govindaraj

Bench: Suraj Govindaraj

                                     CRL.P. NO.7566 OF 2020


                           1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

         CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7566 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

1. V. SEKHAR
   PRESIDENT
   AGED 60 YEARS

2. AMIT RANADE
   SECRETARY
   AGED 35 YEARS

3. KARAN BAJAJ
   JOINT SECRETARY
   AGED 35 YEARS

4. SUDHEENDRA
   TREASURER
   AGED 35 YEARS

  ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF :
  RAHEJA RESIDENCY PINE BLOCK
  APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION
  WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
  E BLOCK RAHEJA RESIDENCY
  3RD BLOCK KORAMANGALA
  BENGALURU-560 034                     ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. UDAY SHANKAR R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SENIOR LABOR INSPECTOR
21ST CIRCLE, KARMIKA BHAVAN
BENNERGHATTA ROAD, DIARY CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 029                     ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
                                       CRL.P. NO.7566 OF 2020


                           2


      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
22.01.2020 PASSED IN C.C.NO.164/2020 BY THE V-MMCT,
BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

                         *****

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing the impugned order dated 22.01.2020 passed in C.C.No.164/2020 by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-V, Bengaluru for alleged offence punishable under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

2. A private complaint came to be filed by respondent No.2 on 22.01.2020 alleging that the petitioners who are the office bearers of the Raheja Residency Pine Block Apartment Owners Association had violated the provision of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 inasmuch as they have not maintained the Composite Attendance Payment Register in Form T, salary slips in form CRL.P. NO.7566 OF 2020 3 IV and summary of the Minimum Wages Act and Rules in Form X and have not displayed the minimum wage rates.

3. Sri.Uday Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Minimum Wages Act is not applicable to the association of which petitioners are office bearers inasmuch as association is only set up for the purposes of catering to the requirements of the owners and tenants of the apartment block. They do not carry out any industrial activities and therefore, the Act would not apply to the said association and the association would not come within the meaning of the term employer under Section 2(e) of the said Act. He further relies on the decision of this Court in the case of SUBHASH BHEENDRA AND ORS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS in CRL.P NO.7983/2016 disposed of on 19.09.2019 CRL.P. NO.7566 OF 2020 4 whereunder this Court has categorically held that the Minimum Wages Act does not apply to an association of apartment owners. On this basis, he submits that when the Act itself does not apply, the question of violation of Act or the Rules cannot be alleged against the petitioners and therefore, he submits that proceedings ought to be quashed.

4. Per contra, Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP would submit that the fact that they were labour engaged would make the act applicable.

5. Heard Sri.Uday Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for the respondent and perused papers.

6. The issue raised in the above matter is no longer res integra more so in view of decision rendered by this Court in Subhash Bheendra (supra). This Court having categorically held that neither CRL.P. NO.7566 OF 2020 5 the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 nor Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules 1950 are applicable to the apartment owner Association. The question of alleging violation of Minimum Wages Act and Minimum Wages (Central) Rules would not at all arise.

7. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 22.01.2020 passed in C.C.No.164/2020 by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-V, Bengaluru for alleged offence punishable under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is hereby quashed.

8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Prs*