Bangalore District Court
Sr Labour Inspector, 28Th Circle vs M/S Urban Wave Co on 14 March, 2024
1 C.C.NO.4006/2022
JUDGMENT
KABC070046142022 Presented on : 11-10-2022 Registered on : 11-10-2022 Decided on : 14-03-2024 Duration : 1 years, 5 months, 3 days IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT - V, BENGALURU Present : VISHWANATH SAVADI B.A., LL.B.,(Hon's) M.M.T.C - V, BENGALURU C.C.No.4006 - 2022 DATED THIS THE 1 4 t h DAY OF M A R C H 2024 COMPLAINANT : 28th SENIOR LABOUR OFFICER, BANGALORE.
// VS // ACCUSED : 1. M/s.Urban Wave Company, No.46/2, Siddappa Layout Main Road, Behind Manasa Talkies, Near Konanakunte Metro Station, Near Loveable Factory, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru - 62.
2. K.R.Venugopal.
3. Yash - Partners ORIGINALLY THIS CASE WAS A PRIVATE COMPLAINT (P.C), UPON TAKING COGNIZANCE OF AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE 2 C.C.NO.4006/2022 JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 22(a) OF MINIMUM WAGES ACT 1948., A CRIMINAL CASE (C.C) CAME TO BE REGISTERED AND ON DUE ADJUDICATION, THIS MATTER CAME TO BE POSTED FOR JUDGMENT.
THIS CASE, COMING ON FOR JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.......
Offences alleged U/Sec. Sec.22(a) of Minimum Wages Act of 1948.
Date of cognizance of offence 11.10.2022.
Trial commenced on 06.02.2024.
Trial completed on 06.02.2024.
Judgment date 14.03.2024.
Total duration Years-Months-Days
1 Years, 5 Months, 3 days
JU DG E M E N T
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows:
a. The complainant's case is that he inspected the establishment of the accused on 12.04.2022 and found nine employee/ worker there and also noticed the following violations: -
i. Failure to maintain register and records at the work place as per Section 18(1) Act and Rule 29(5) of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules 1950.
ii. Failure to maintain and to keep Register of Muster Roll in Form V at the work place.
iii. Failure to maintain and to keep register of wages slip in Form VI at the work place.3 C.C.NO.4006/2022
JUDGMENT iv. Failure to produce Annual Report of 2021 in Form - U. b. It is further alleged that after the inspection, a notice was given to the Accused No.1 to 3 under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 & Rules made there under, but they failed to produce the same. Thus, Accused No.1 to 3 are alleged to have contravened the provision of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and they are alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 22-A of Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
3. As the complaint was made by public servant, hence, examination of complainant was dispensed with under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
4. The Accused No.1 to 3 were summoned to face trial vide order dated 11.10.2022. Upon appearance of Accused No.1 to 3, they were supplied the copy of complaint and its annexures.
5. On the basis of the complaint, a Notice u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 22-A, Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was framed against the Accused No.1 to 3 and read out to the said Accused No.1 to 3, to which the Accused No.1 to 3 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 11.09.2023. 4 C.C.NO.4006/2022
JUDGMENT
6. Thereafter the prosecution in order to prove the accusation leveled against the Accused No.1 to 3 has got examined complainant as P.W.1 and in the evidence of the prosecution Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 documents are got marked as exhibits.
7. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, statement of the Accused No.1 to 3 as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The Accused No.1 to 3 have denied the incriminating evidence appearing in the prosecution evidence. The Accused No.1 to 3 did not choose to adduce defense evidence.
8. Heard the arguments of the learned APP and Learned Counsel for the Accused No.1 to 3. Perused the materials available on record.
9. The points that arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 12.04.2022, the complainant visited and inspected the establishment of the accused and found violation of the act and thereby Accused No.1 to 3 have committed offence under Section 22-A of Minimum Wages Act of 1948?
2. What order?
10. My findings on the above said point are as follows: 5 C.C.NO.4006/2022
JUDGMENT POINT NO.1: For the NEGATIVE;
POINT NO.2: As per the final order
for the following;
: R E A S ON S:
11. In this case, in order to prove the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant/Inspector himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and testified that he had visited the premises of establishment Accused and inspected the same and he found violations as mentioned in the complaint. He further stated in his testimony that he had issued a notice to the Supervisor of the Accused establishment to produce the relevant documents but failed to produce the documents at the spot and in the office as per notice dated 06.05.2022, hence, Accused No.1 to 3 were challaned under Section 22-A of Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Ex.P.1 is the Inspection Report, Ex.P.2 is the Show Cause Notice- Final dated 06.05.2022, Ex.P.3 is the Details of service of notice to the establishment of the Accused and Ex.P.4 is the Complaint.
12. The learned Counsel for the accused has thoroughly cross-
examined the PW.1. The PW.1 in his cross-examination admitted that, no photographs were taken while inspecting the premises of the 6 C.C.NO.4006/2022 JUDGMENT establishment of the accused. He admits that none of the workers of the accused establishment have complained that they are getting low wages. He admitted that, in the show cause notice at Ex.P.2, he had mentioned that, he had visited and inspected the establishment of accused on 05.07.2022, but he volunteers that, the date was wrongly mentioned. He denied the suggestion that, he had not visited and inspected the establishment of the accused on 12.04.2022. The PW.1 also admitted that he had not recorded the statement of the workers at the spot. He denied the suggestion that, Jameel Ahmed was not a supervisor in the establishment of the Accused and in their establishment, the 8 people mentioned in the complaint were not working in their establishment.
13. In order to make out an offence under Section 22-A of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, it is necessary to prove that the Accused No.1 to 3 are the employer under Section 2(e) of the Minimum Wages Act.
14. It is further required to be proved that employee Jameel Ahmed and eight other were working in the establishment of the Accused and that the said employees were not paid minimum wages 7 C.C.NO.4006/2022 JUDGMENT and that establishment of the Accused has also not complied with provision of Minimum Wages Act.
15. The definition of "Employer" as defined in Section 2(e) of Minimum Wages Act is as under: -
(e) "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 this Act, and includes, except in sub-section (3) of Section 26;
(i)in a factory where there is carried on any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, any person named under [clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948)], as manager of the factory;
(ii)in any scheduled employment under the control of any Government in India in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, the person or authority appointed by such Government for the supervision and control of employees or where no person or authority is so appointed, the head of the department;
(iii)in any scheduled employment under any local authority in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, the person appointed by such authority for the supervision and control of employees or where no person is so appointed, the chief executive officer of the local authority;
(iv)in any other case where there is carried on any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, any person responsible to the owner for the supervision and control of the employees or for the payment of wages.8 C.C.NO.4006/2022
JUDGMENT
16. The definition of "Employee" as defined 2 (i) of Minimum Wages Act is as under: -
(i) "employee" means any person who is employed for hire or reward to do any work, skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical, in a scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed; and includes an out-worker to whom any articles or materials are given out by another person to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, repaired, adapted or otherwise processed for sale for the purposes of the trade or business of that other person where the process is to be carried out either in the home of the out-worker or in some other premises not being premises under the control and management of that other person; and also includes an employee declared to be an employee by the appropriate Government; but does not include any member of the Armed Forces of the Union.
17. In order to prove that Accused No.1 to 3 are an employer, it is necessary to prove that Accused No.1 to 3 persons have employed Jameel Ahmed and eight others either directly or through someone in any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages were fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. The complainant failed to prove that one Jameel Ahmed and eight others were ever employed with the establishment of the Accused by producing any documentary evidence in this regard. Rather, when the complainant/PW-1 was cross-examined in this regard, he stated "I did not record the statement of workman at the spot and he did not know the remaining names of eight others. From the cross examination, it is 9 C.C.NO.4006/2022 JUDGMENT clear that the complainant is not even aware as to who are the eight others. The complainant did not take any photographs of the workers working during inspection nor did any of the workers personally approach them alleging that this workman was employed in their establishment by the Accused No.1 to 3. Thus, there is no evidence on record to prove that Accused No.1 to 3 are employers and Jameel Ahmed and eight others are employee as defined under Minimum Wages Act.
18. Besides this, there are also contradictions about the date of inspection of the spot. As per the complaint averments and chief examination of PW-1, he had visited and inspected the establishment of the Accused on 12-04-2022. But in Ex.P.2- show cause notice mentions the date of inspection was mentioned as 05-07.2002. While in the cross-examination of PW.1, he admitted that, in the show cause notice, he has mentioned that, he has visited and inspected the establishment of the Accused on 05.07.2022, he volunteers that, the date is wrongly mentioned. However, there is no explanation either in the complaint or in the chief examination as to why the date of visit and inspection of establishment of the Accused were wrongly mentioned. Therefore, the fact that the complainant actually visited and inspected the establishment of the accused as stated in the 10 C.C.NO.4006/2022 JUDGMENT complaint creates doubt in the mind of the court. Further, there is no evidence on record to show that, establishment of accused was dealing in Sofa Manufacturing Unit. Thus, the very nature of business of the establishment of accused is shrouded with doubts. Thus, the complainant has failed to prove the allegations against the Accused No.1 to 3 that they employed an employee (Jameel Ahmed and eight others) in a scheduled employment and violations of rules made under the Minimum Wages Act. With these observations, this Court answered point No.1 in the NEGATIVE.
19. Point No.2: For forgoing discussion and findings on point No.1, following order is passed:
OR D E R Exercising powers under Sec.255 (1) of the Cr.P.C., Accused No.1 to 3 is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable u/Sec.22-A of Minimum Wages Act of 1948.The bail bond of the Accused No.1 to 3
stands cancelled. Accused No.1 to 3 set at liberty forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open court on this 14 th day of March 2024) VISHWANATH SAVADI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BENGALURU.11 C.C.NO.4006/2022
JUDGMENT A N NE X U R E LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 N.V.Govindarajulu.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION Ex.P.1 Inspection Report.
Ex.P.2 Show Cause Notice- Final. Ex.P.3 Details. Ex.P.4 Complaint.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 NIL VISHWANATH SAVADI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BENGALURU.