Jharkhand High Court
M/S Gtl Ltd vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 September, 2018
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 508 of 2009
-----------
1. M/s GTL Ltd.
2. Manoj G. Tirodkar @ Manoj Tirodkar .....Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Hazaribagh.
....Opposite Parties
-----
Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : None
-----
05/24.09.2018 Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. No
one appears on behalf of O.P. No. 2.
In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with G. Case No. 22 of 2007 including the order dated 29.1.2007, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken under section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act.
It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that prior to institution of the complaint case, a show cause notice was issued to the employer and a reply was duly submitted but the same was not found to be satisfactory merely indicating that there has been violation of various rules.
Learned senior counsel has referred to section 22 C of the Minimum Wages Act. It has further been submitted that petitioner no. 2 was not incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and in such circumstances, therefore, since it contravenes section 22C of the Minimum Wages Act, the criminal proceeding against the petitioners deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned senior counsel has also drawn attention to the complaint petition wherein the name of the accused persons has been arrayed as the company through the petitioner no. 2 who happens to be the Managing Director at the relevant point of time.
In support of his contention, he has referred to a judgement rendered in the case of M/s Metrograph Company Private Limited and others Vs. State of Jharkhand & Another, reported in [2012 (132) FLR 299].
The complaint petition, which has been instituted by the O.P. No. 2, reveals that there was some violation of Rules 22, 26(5), 26(1), 25(2), 21(4) and 26(2) of the Minimum Wages Rules. The complaint petition further reveals that an inspection was conducted on 31.7.2006 and since it was found that some rules were not followed a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner company, to -2- which a reply was submitted, in which it was submitted that the irregularities, which have been alleged, have been removed but the O.P. No. 2 having found the show cause reply to be not satisfactory has further proceeded to institute a complaint case. The complaint petition further reveals that the accused was a contractor for erection of telecom Tower for Reliance Telecom Ltd. at Hazaribagh. After the complaint petition was instituted on 29.1.2007, cognizance was taken for the offence under section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Hazaribagh.
In the background of submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, it would be apposite to refer to Section 22C of the Minimum Wages Act, which reads as follows:-
Section 22-C. Offences by companies 22-C. Offences by companies.--(1) If the person committing any offence under this Act is a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,--
(a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals, and
(b) "director" in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm.
Bare perusal of Section 22 C of the Minimum Wages Act reveals about a person being incharge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, who can be proceeded against for violation of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act as well as the Rules framed therein.
Contrary to Section 22 C of the Minimum Wages Act, the complaint petition seems to be absolutely silent as to whether the petitioner no. 2 was incharge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business and no specific averments have been made in the complaint petition in that respect.
A similar question fell for consideration before this Court in the case of M/s Metrograph Company Private Limited and others (Supra), wherein while considering Section 22C of the Minimum Wages Act, it was held as follows:-
"8. In the present case also, I find that Section 22-C of the Minimum Wages Act clearly lays down that in case of a company, every person -3- who at the time the offence was committed, was incharge of, and was responsible to, the company for conduct of the business of the company, can only be deemed to be guilty. Accordingly, it is manifest that these facts had to be specifically alleged in the complaint petition and in absence thereof, in my considered view, no action can be continued against them. The present case is fully covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Bank of India(supra)".
It is, thus, absolutely clear that absence of specific averments in terms of Section 22C of the Minimum Wages Act when the offences are alleged to have been committed by a company and following the ratio as laid down in the case of M/s Metrograph Company Private Limited and others (Supra), this Court comes to a conclusion that it would be an abuse of the process of court if the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners are allowed to continue.
In such view of the matter, therefore, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings in connection with G. Case No. 22 of 2007 including the order dated 29.1.2007 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act, is hereby quashed and set aside.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) Rakesh/-