ARVIND N PARIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application challenges the summons issued against the applicants under Sec. 35(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (for short "the said Act"), whereby respondent No.2 has filed a complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 39th Court, Vile Parle, Mumbai (for short "the learned Magistrate").

(2.) It is contention of learned counsel for the applicants that respondent No.2 has alleged that the applicants, by permitting accumulation of earned leave beyond 42 days have violated the provisions of Sec. 35(1)(b) of the said Act. Learned counsel further submitted that any service conditions, which are more favorable than those provided by any statute cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as an act of violation of any law. The proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 are a gross abuse of the provisions of law. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.2 has filed a complaint without even making the company a party to the proceedings and the complaint is not maintainable on this ground alone and requested to allow the application.

(3.) It is contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2- Corporation that the notice issued and complaint filed against the applicants is under the appropriate Sec. . Learned counsel further submitted that the order of issue process has been passed against the applicants, consequently summons was issued. The applicants have violated the provisions of the said Act. Hence, requested to dismiss the application.