UDAY KOTAK Vs. N. GANESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3511 of 2019 on the file of the learned XI metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai for the offence under Sec. 28 read with Sec. 29 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the breach of Rule 4(c) of the Payment of Bonus Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) read with Sec. 26 of the Act.

(2.) The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.33951 of 2019 is the Managing Director and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.33813 of 2018 is the Associate Vice President of M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank. It is alleged in the complaint that the respondent inspected the premises of the Adyar Branch, M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited on 27/12/2018 and during inspection, it was found that the register showing payment of bonus to the employees for the accounting year ending 2018-2019 was not maintained in Form C and that was in breach of Rule 4(c) of the Rules. It is also alleged that the petitioner had submitted the reply. They once again inspected the premises and the employers failed to produce the concerned register.

(3.) Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian, learned senior counsel for the petitioners would submit that in response to the show cause notice dtd. 27/12/2018, the bank had sent a reply on 18/1/2019 wherein they had stated that all the registers were maintained centrally at Mumbai; amd that they had also enclosed the copy of registers maintained in Form C along with the reply to the said show cause notice; and that this reply has been acknowledged by the respondent herein. The learned senior counsel further submitted that as per Sec. 3 of the Payment of Bonus Act, the departments or branches shall be treated as parts of the same establishment and registers need not be kept at all times in all the branches; that the only requirement is the register has to be maintained in Form C and D by the employer; and that the impugned complaint has not considered the reply sent by the Bank on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, he submitted that since the petitioners have sent the necessary documents and the registers along with their reply to show that they were maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the impugned complaint is liable to be quashed.