(1.) The Petitioner/accused seeks quashing of proceedings in S.T.C. No. 75/2009 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayatnagar, Ranga Reddy District relating to offence punishable under Section 13(1) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (in short, the Act).
(2.) It is alleged that the Petitioner's Industrial Establishment was inspected by the Squad team on January 30, 2009 and February 2, 2009 and found that the accused failed to comply with Section 3 of the Act and that the accused was served notice by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District vide notice dated February 5, 2009 and acknowledged on February 7, 2009 by the Petitioner and that the Certifying Officer under the Act viz., Joint Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy Zone granted permission to prosecute the employer/accused of the Industrial Establishment for violation of Section 3(1) of the Act and permitted the Assistant Labour Officer, Ibrahimpatnam to institute the prosecution against the accused in Court vide proceedings dated May 28, 2009.
(3.) It is foremost contention of the Petitioner that the Petitioner's establishment is registered under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishment Act as Commercial Establishment and registration is being renewed from time to time and that therefore, the Petitioner's Establishment cannot be termed as Industrial Establishment within the meaning of the Act. This contention of the Petitioner is fallacious. Simply because establishment of the Petitioner is registered under one enactment like the A.P. Shops and Establishment Act, it cannot be said that except that enactment, no other enactment is applicable to that establishment. Applicability or otherwise of the Act to the Petitioner's establishment depends on definition of Industrial Establishment contained in the Act and it cannot be adjudged on the basis of registration of the Petitioner's establishment under the A.P. Shops and Establishment Act. Section 2(e) of the Act defines 'Industrial Establishment' as follows: