THOMAS JOHN MUTHOOT Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure A1 complaint pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, Punalur under Sections 21(2) and 22 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act') by invoking inherent jurisdiction. The above complaint was filed by the Assistant Labour Officer, Punalur for the contravention of the above provisions of the Act. The petitioner is a partner of 'Muthoot Bankers', Chandrika Towers, Kunnicodu, which is a partnership firm with eight partners. In the above complaint, the manager or the managing director of the establishment was not arrayed as an accused. Instead of that, the petitioner was impleaded as an accused. He has no direct contact with the day-to-day business of the partnership firm. Therefore, if trial is proceeded on the basis of Annexure A1 complaint, it is only a mere abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, he prays to invoke inherent jurisdiction.

(2.) The first respondent is the Assistant Labour Officer, Punalur. He inspected M/s. Muthoot Bankers, Chandrika Towers, Kunnikode, Kollam District, on 19.07.2005 at 3 p.m. and noticed that the petitioner failed to maintain and produce information regarding the names and addresses of the women engaged in the establishment, their payments, application or notes if any received under the Act for the period from 1.1.2004 to 30.06.2005 and he also failed to maintain proper muster roll as per the Act. In these circumstances, Annexure A1 complaint was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, Punalur. Hence the petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the establishment consists of only five employees. Therefore, the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 is not applicable to that firm. He further submits that the first respondent has not produced any notification before the competent authority to show that he is an empowered officer for inspection as per Section 14 of the Act. The manager or the managing director, who is in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the establishment was not arraigned as a party. In the absence of such pleadings, prosecution against the petitioner will not lie.