LAWS(GJH)-2025-8-32

IGNATIUS NAVIL NORONHA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On August 25, 2025
Ignatius Navil Noronha Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Notice served and respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed reply.

(2.) By way of this application under Sec. 528 of the BNSS, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint in Criminal Case No.842 of 2022 pending before the learned Labour court, Ahmedabad and for quashing of all the orders passed therein and proceedings arising therefrom.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Company's premises were inspected on 24/5/2022 alleging noncompliance regarding maintenance of registers and records under Sec. 18 of the Act read with Rule 25(1) of the Rules. A detailed reply was submitted along with documents showing compliance with the Minimum Wages Act, the Payment of Bonus Act, the Payment of Gratuity Act, the Equal Remuneration Act, and the Contract Labour Act. It was also clarified that no overtime was taken, nine hours of duty was ensured, and weekly offs were provided. Despite this, the complaint was filed belatedly and cognizance was taken mechanically in violation of Ss. 22A, 22B of the Act, though there is a specific bar against cognizance beyond six months. The complaint is therefore ex facie barred by limitation. It was further submitted that while the application of one director at Exh.3 was allowed on the ground that he was not responsible for the affairs of the Company, a similar application filed by the present applicant at Exh.7 was erroneously rejected by the Labour Court. Learned Advocate argued that the impugned order suffers from serious infirmity. The complaint neither discloses the essential ingredients of Sec. 18 read with Rule 25(1) nor makes any specific averments as to how the applicant was in charge of or responsible for the conduct of business. Mere designation as CEO without attributing any role is insufficient to fasten liability. The reliance on a Company resolution dtd. 8/11/2016 is irrelevant. Hence, the order dtd. 24/2/2025 and the complaint itself deserve to be quashed.