Bangalore District Court
The Labour Enforcement vs M/S. Ambedkar Souhardha on 18 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BANGALORE CITY
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JANUARY 2016
PRESENT :Smt. M. LATHAKUMARI
M.A.,LL.M.
VI ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE.
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Case No. : CC.No.6750/2005
Date of offence : 18-11-2004
Complainant : The Labour Enforcement
Officer(Central)
Accused : M/s. Ambedkar Souhardha
Labour Contract Sahakari Ltd
Shri Chi N.A. Ramu, Speaker
No.13/12th Main Road,
Haleguddadahalli,
Devraj Arasu Nagar,
Bangalore-26.
Offence : U/s.10(1)(A) of Equal
Remuneration Act.
Plea : Accused pleaded
not guilty
Final order : Accused is acquitted
Date of Order : 18-1-2016.
** ** **
2 CC.No.6750/2005
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
Complainant-Labour Enforcement officer filed
this complaint against accused alleging that
accused being the contractor engaged in man
power supply to NIANP, Hosur road, Bangalore,
violated Rule 6 of Equal Remuneration Rules 1976
r/w Sec.8 of the Act and failed to maintain the
register in form 'D' appended Equal Remuneration
Rules 1976. When complainant visited the
establishment of accused on 18-11-2004 at about
3-00PM, came to know about these violations and
hence complainant asserted that accused
committed an offence punishable U/s.10(1)(A) of
Equal Remuneration Act.
2. On taking cognizance accused was
summoned before this court. Since accused
pleaded not guilty, complainant got himself
examined as PW-1 and got marked as many as 6
documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6. In his chief
3 CC.No.6750/2005
examination PW.1 asserted that, at the time of
his inspection one Sathish was present in the
institute of accused along with one Scientist
Mr. Guptha. He prepared Inspection Note at the
spot and issued show-cause notice along with
Inspection Report to the accused herein. Accused
got issued reply to the said notice. He has
produced said inspection report as per Ex.P-4,
copy of postal acknowledgment as per Ex.P-5,
copy of reply notice as per Ex.P-6. In this
reply notice accused made it very clear that the
employees at NIANP, Adugodi, Bangalore supplied
by him are not treated as employees supplied
by him. They are treated as workers directly
taken up by NIANP. Further accused asserted
that, the persons working there are also not the
members of the society. The payment towards such
workers is being paid directly, violating the
agreement entered into between himself and the
NIANP. The wages are being paid directly in cash
4 CC.No.6750/2005
to the workers at the spot. The bills towards
the wages of workers is also not being paid to
him and hence stated that observations
communicated to him are unreasonable and beyond
his control. In spite of such reply given by
accused herein, Labour Officer not at all
bothered to contact the principal employer. In
his Inspection Report Ex.P-2 NIANP is shown as
principal employer. Inspection Note Ex.P-4 was
prepared in presence of one Guptha scientist of
NIANP and Sathish who is Field officer of NIANP.
Further it is not the case of complainant that
he received complaints from Labourers at NIANP
and hence he visited the said establishment. In
spite of reply notice as per Ex.P-6 Labour
officer not at all bothered to arrayed the
principal employer as one of the accused in this
case. Though complainant stated one Puttaswamy
as witness No.2, he was not examined before this
court. In the cross-examination of PW.1
5 CC.No.6750/2005
complainant pleaded his ignorance about the
correspondence between NIANP and also accused
herein. From the oral testimony of PW.1 it is
crystal clear that complainant not at all
bothered to enquire with NIANP with regard to
mode of wages and also the date fixed every
month for the payment of such wages. Except the
oral testimony of complainant, no authenticated
materials produced before this court.
Complainant not even bothered to examine the
persons present at the time of execution of
Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-4. Considering the same, I
proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
Accused is not found guilty for the offences punishable U/s.10(1)(A) of Equal Remuneration Act.
Acting U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C accused is acquitted.
6 CC.No.6750/2005The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 18th day of January 2016).
(M. LATHAKUMARI) VI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore city.
Annexure
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW-1 Srinivas Shetty.
2.Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P-1 Notification Ex.P-2 & 3 Inspection Reports Ex.P-4 Inspection Note Ex.P-5 Postal acknowledgement Ex.P-6 Reply Notice.
3. Material objects:
Nil.
VI ADDL.C.M.M.BANGALORE CITY. 7 CC.No.6750/2005 (Judgment pronounced in the open court) ORDER Accused is not found guilty for the offences punishable U/s.10(1)(A) of Equal Remuneration Act.
Acting U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C accused is acquitted.
The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(Vide Separate Order) VI Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore. 8 CC.No.6750/2005 9 CC.No.6750/2005 (Judgment pronounced in the open court) ORDER (Vide Separate Order) VI Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore.