PHILLIPOS AND CO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises for consideration in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code for short) is: Whether a "Firm of Chartered Accountants" is an "Establishment" within the meaning of the expression in Section 2(i) of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 (Act No. 8 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961).

(2.) The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as below: Phillipos & Company is a registered Partnership Firm of Chartered Accountants, having its Office at No. 12, Davis Road, Bangalore-560 084, Post Box No. 8401. The Partnership Firm of Chartered Accountants (hereinafter referred to as the Firm) is also registered under (the) Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1949). Wg. Cdr. Phillipos (petitioner No. 2), Ashok Kumar (petitioner No. 3), B. Satyanarayan (petitioner No. 4) and Joseph Phillipos (petitioner No. 5) - the Chartered Accountants - are the partners of the Firm. On 3-2-1987 at about 12-45 P.M. Sri Srinivasa, the Senior Labour Inspector, V Circle, Bangalore-2 (respondent herein) inspected the Office of the Firm. He noticed several contraventions of the provisions of the Act of 1961 and of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Rules, 1963 (the Rules for short) by the Firm during the course of inspection. The particulars and details of the contraventions are stated in the Inspection Report. It appears from the record that a notice was issued by the Senior Labour Inspector, V Circle, Bangalore-2, to the Firm and its partners (petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 herein) asking the Firm and its partners to show cause as to why a prosecution should not be launched against the Firm and its partners for having contravened the provisions of the Act of 1961 and the Rules. The Firm and its partners were asked under the notice to show cause in writing within three days of the receipt of the notice. It is clear from the record that the partners of the Firm refused to receive the show cause notice. Hence, the respondent directed the despatch of the show cause notice to the Firm and its partners by post. Petitioner No. 2, on behalf of the Firm, petitioners Nos. 3 to 5 and on his own behalf, wrote to the respondent on 15-4-1987 stating therein that the notice dated 25-3-1987 had been received together with the Inspection Report dated 3-2-1987 and sought four weeks' time to submit the explanation. On 27-5-1987, on behalf of the Firm, petitioners Nos. 3 to 5 and on his own behalf, petitioner No. 2 sent reply stating therein that the Firm was a registered Firm of Chartered Accountants; that there were four partners in the Firm; and that the Firm employs six clerical staff. Petitioner No. 2 contended that the Office of Chartered Accountant is analogous to the office of Lawyers; and that the Office of the Chartered Accountants would not come within the expressions either of "shop" or of "commercial establishment" as defined under Section 2(e) and 2(u) of the act of 1961. Thereafter the respondent lodged a complaint against the Firm and petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-I, Bangalore The Inspection Report, the Show Cause Notice, the letter written by petitioner No. 2 on behalf of the Firm, petitioners Nos. 3 to 5 and on his own behalf dated 15-4-1987 and the reply given by him on 27-5-1987 were produced along with the complaint. The other document produced along with the complaint is the sanction accorded by the Additional Labour Commissioner, II Division, Bangalore, to prosecute the Firm and its partners under Sections 4(1), 12(1), 29 and 34 of the Act of 1961, and under Rules 8(1), 9(1), 24(1), 24(2), 24(4), 24(5), 24(8) and 24(11) of the Rules.

(3.) The learned Trial Magistrate took the complaint on his file on 22-7-1987 and directed its registration in Case No. 21496/87. He issued summons to the Firm and petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 making it returnable by 21-8-1987. It appears from the record maintained by the learned Trial Magistrate that two among the petitioners (petitioners Nos. 2 and 4) appeared before the learned Trial Magistrate in response to the summons and secured bail. When the proceedings before the learned Trial Magistrate were pending awaiting the service of summons on petitioners Nos. 3 and 5, the Firm and petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 approached this Court with this petition and obtained stay of further proceedings.