S ANANDAN Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petition under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner is the accused in ST No. 51 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Haripad. The first respondent herein, the Assistant Labour Officer, Kayamkulam, filed Annexure-III complaint before the lower court against the petitioner alleging offence under S.29 of the Kerala Shops & Commercial Establishments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Shops Act') with a plea that the petitioner, who is the President of the Kandalloor Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 1410, Kandalloor P.O. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) is an employer coming under the definition of S.2(7) of the Shops Act, the Bank is a commercial establishment as defined under S.2(8) of the Shops Act and that on 22.7.2005 when the first respondent, who is an inspector appointed under S.25 of the Shops Act, inspected the above establishment, it was found that the petitioner had violated the provisions of the Shops Act and Rules thereunder as he failed to apply for registration under S.5A of the Shops Act and that though a show cause notice caused on 5.5.2005 was accepted by the petitioner, the petitioner had not rectified the defect till date and therefore, the petitioner had violated the provisions of the Shops Act and is punishable under S.29 of the Shops Act. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued process. Assailing the order taking cognizance and seeking an order to quash Annexure-III complaint, this petition is filed.

(2.) The plea of the petitioner is that the petitioner would not come with the definition of the employer under the Shops Act, the bank would not come with the definition of the establishment under the Shops Act, the bank would come within the exemption under S.3(1)(f) of the Shops Act and that he is only the head of a governing body coming under S.2(e) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Societies Act') under which the Bank was established and therefore, he is not liable to be prosecuted under the Shops Act.

(3.) I have heard Advocate Sri. K. Anand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, Smt. S. Hyma. The documents were perused.