CHENNAI PORT TRUST Vs. REGIONAL CENTRAL APPRENTICESHIP ADVISER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. N. Jagadeesan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner, being a statutory body, has come forward with this petition seeking the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint given by the respondent/complainant in C. C. No. 8686 of 2002 on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, for the alleged offence under section 30 (1) (c)and 30 (2) of the Apprentices Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the act" ).

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation is related to the contravention of the provision of Section 30 (1) (c) and 30 (2) of the Act, herein after referred to Act, relating to the number of apprentice which is required to be engaged in the Chennai Port Trust. THE learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent/complainant sent a letter dated 29. 01. 2002 directing the 3rd petitioner (the first petitioner is the statutory body, the second petitioner is the Chairman of the chennai Port Trust and the third petitioner is the Chief Mechanical Engineer) to arrange and engage the full quota of the apprentice as per seat located for chennai port Trust failing which they may be constrained to invoke the provisions of Section 30 (1) (c) of the Act. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a suitable reply was given by the petitioners dated 03. 04. 2002 explaining the position in the Chennai Port Trust and the matter was kept in the cold storage and the petitioners are yet to know the result of their explanation dated 03. 04. 2002.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that in the complaint, the respondent has not mentioned about the earlier notice dated 29. 01. 2002 and the explanation of the petitioners dated 03. 04. 2002 and further there is absolutely not a whisper about the explanation given by the 3rd petitioner dated 27. 11. 2002 to the second show cause notice dated 23. 08. 2002. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as a matter of fact, the complaint itself is barred by limitation. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Section 33 of the act provides that a complaint can be filed in the court in writing made by the apprenticeship Advisor within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. THE learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the respondent/complainant has sent a show cause notice dated 29. 1. 2002 and through that show cause notice, the complainant directed the petitioners to comply with the requirements of engaging full quota of apprentice as per the seat located for the Chennai Port Trust and in the event of failure, it is also specifically mentioned in that notice that penal proceedings would be initiated against the petitioners u/s. 30 (1) (c) of the act. THErefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it has to be construed that the limitation starts from 29. 01. 2002 and therefore, the complaint could have been filed by the respondent on or before 28. 07. 2002. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that with a view to overcome the bar of limitation, now the complainant proceeded to file a complaint calculating the limitation from the date of second show cause notice dated 23. 08. 2002.