MYSORE CEMENTS LTD Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari holding that the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent as against the petitioner before the hon'ble Judicial Magistrate First Class, Turuvekere, in C. C. No. 523 of 2000 is void ab initio, without jurisdiction and illegal and consequently to quash the above said proceedings, i. e. , taking cognizance of the offence and have further sought for dismissing the complaint filed by the respondent as per Annexure E urging various grounds.

(2.) THE first petitioner/company represented by its Managing Director and the second petitioner is the Director-Finance of the first petitioner-company have questioned the authority of the respondent in filing the complaint against them under Section 200, Cr. P. C. read with Section 29 of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (in short PB Act) for the alleged violation of the provisions of sections 2 (1) (iii) (a), 4 (b), 6 (d), 15 and 16, 19, 11, Rules 4 (a), 4 (b) and 4 (c) of the P. B. Act, 1965 and the Payment of Bonus Rules, 1975 (for short, PB Rules ).

(3.) THE necessary brief facts of the case are stated as hereunder for the purpose of considering the rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties. The respondent issued show-cause notice to the second petitioner, dated May 15, 2000, referring to the Inspection Report No. 65/1999 D9, dated December 1, 1999, wherein certain irregularities were pointed out under the provisions of the P. B. Act and the P. B. Rules during the course of inspection of the company on December 1, 1999 and to submit their explanation within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why legal action should not be initiated against them for the lapses noted in the inspection report referred to above. Petitioners submitted their reply, dated February 25, 2000, stating that they have not contravened the statutory provisions as alleged and as such no legal action is required to be initiated against them. One more reply was submitted, by the General Manager (Personal) of the first petitioner to the respondent explaining the various facts, stating that they have not violated any one of the provisions of the P. B. Act and the P. B. Rules and further requested the respondent to drop the further action as contemplated by him against the petitioners. The respondent filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, first Class, Turuvekere, in exercise of his purported authority under Section 30 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Hence, these writ petitions are filed.