Karnataka High Court
M/S Astrazeneca Pharma India Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 694
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4211/2011
BETWEEN:
1. M/s AstraZeneca Pharma India Ltd.,
P.B.No.2483
Bellary Road, Hebbal
Bengaluru-560 024
Represented by its
Associate Director-HR.
2. Mr. D.E. Udwadia
M/s Udwadia & Udeshi
Solicitors & Advocates
Elphinstone House, 1st Floor,
17 Murzban Road,
Mumbai-400 001.
3. Mr. K.S. Shah
505/506, Makhija Chambers,
Tumkur Road, Bandra (West),
Mumbai-400 050.
4. Mr. Anandh Balasundaram
AstraZeneca Pharma India Ltd.,
"Avishkar", P.B.No.2483
Off Bellary Road,
Hebbal,
Bengaluru -560 024. ... Petitioners
(By Sri Ravi B. Naik, Advocate)
2
AND
The State of Karnataka
Represented by its
Assistant Labour Commissioner
Division-3,
Karmika Bhavan,
Bannerghatta Road,
Bengaluru -560 029. ... Respondent
(By Sri S. Rachaiah, HCGP)
This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C praying to quash entire proceedings dated
15.4.11 in C.C. No.373/11 on the file of MMTC-VI,
Bangalore as per Annexure-A produced herein by
allowing the above petition.
This Criminal petition coming on for Hearing, this
day, the court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to call for records leading to initiation of criminal proceedings before the jurisdictional Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-VI, Bangalore in C.C. No373/2011 and to quash the entire proceedings dated 15.04.2011 in C.C. No.373/2011 as per Annexure-A. 3
2. By the above order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 9 of Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short).
3. Heard learned senior counsel, Sri Ravi B.Naik appearing for petitioners and Sri Rachaiah, learned HCGP for respondent.
4. The facts leading to the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner No.1/Company is that the Assistant Labour Commissioner inspected the petitioner No.1/Company on 11.02.2011 and found certain irregularities in the maintenance of the registers of Sales Promotion Employees in 'B' Form as well as the appointment letters of the employees of the said company as mandated under the Act. Hence, he issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner No.1/Company to submit its explanation for the above violations. 4
5. In response to the said notice, petitioner No.1/Company by letter dated 03.03.2011 submitted that only 213 employees fall within ambit of the provisions of aforesaid Act and therefore, there was no violation whatsoever as alleged in the notice issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Being not satisfied with the said response, the Assistant Labour Commissioner filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate under Section 200 of Cr.PC., alleging that petitioner No.1 has failed to comply with requirements of Rules 22(1), 23(A), 23(B), 23(C) and 23(D) of the Sales Promotion Employees Rules, which are punishable under Section 9 of the aforesaid Act.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submitted that the provisions of the Act are applicable only to the sales promotions employees. At the earliest instance, the company had brought to the notice of the Assistant Labour Commissioner that only 213 employees fall within the definition contained in Section 2(d) of the Act. Necessary material was produced before 5 the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Therefore, initiation of the proceedings against petitioner No.1 and other officers of the company for the alleged violation is wholly illegal and abuse of the provisions of the aforesaid Act and therefore, sought to quash the proceedings.
7. Per contra, learned HCGP would submit that none of the Registers or Appointment letters as required under the Act were produced before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The petitioner was rest satisfied by submitting a letter which does not amount to the compliance of the requirements laid down under the Act and therefore, Assistant Labour Commissioner was justified in initiating the proceedings by making a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
8. Notwithstanding the contentions urged by the parties regarding the alleged violations of the provisions of aforesaid Act, on going through the cognizance order passed by learned Magistrate, it is noticed that the learned 6 Magistrate has not at all taken cognizance of the offences alleged in the complaint. Cognizance order reads as under:
Perused complaint and its enclosures.
Cognizance of offence taken against
accused u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. Since
complainant is Public Servant recording of sworn statement is dispensed with. Prima-Facie there are sufficient materials to proceed against accused for the offences punishable u/s 9 of Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976.
Office is directed to register criminal case against accused and issue summon to accused u/s 204 of Cr.P.C. directing him to appear before court on 25.06.2011.
9. As could be seen from the above, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of Section 9 of the Act which provides for punishment of fine which may extend up to Rs.1,000/-. Learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance of any of the offence alleged in the complaint. 7 Therefore, solely on this ground, the petition deserves to be allowed.
10. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the learned Magistrate to re-consider the matter afresh from the stage of taking cognizance and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
11. All the contentions urged by the parties are kept open. In the meanwhile, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to place relevant materials before the Deputy/Assistant Labour Commissioner within 30 days from today, in which event, Deputy/Assistant Labour Commissioner shall consider the explanation and the materials produced by the petitioners and shall pass appropriate orders on the show cause notice issued to the petitioners.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBM/NMS