LAWS(MPH)-2020-1-326

DAYLE DE SOUZA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Decided On January 20, 2020
Dayle De Souza Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the order dated 14/08/2014 passed by the Court of JMFC, Sagar whereby criminal case has been registered against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.2, the Labour Enforcement Officer, in the Court.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that the applicant is the Director of Writer Safeguard Pvt. Ltd. having its Head Office at Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai (Maharashtra). The State Bank of India installed the ATMs (Automated Teller Machines) in different-different places and entered into an agreement with NCR Corporation India Private Limited for maintenance and upkeeping of its AMTs and performing other allied activities. Lateron, NCR Corporation India Private Limited further entered into an agreement with the company of the applicant and applicant was assigned work of replenishing cash at specified ATMs and perform its allied activities.

(3.) Respondent No.2-Labour Enforcement Officer inspected the ATMs of State Bank of India at Komal Chand Petrol Pump, Sagar on 19/02/2014 and noted some discrepancies that the applicant has failed to maintain the display of notices, maintenance of registers or record at the ATM sites regarding payment of wages. For that noted discrepancies, the applicant has been served with the notice dated 06/03/2014 (Annexure-P/3) with regard to removal of that discrepancies. The applicant immediately replied to respondent No.2 vide representation dated 02/04/2014 (Annexure-P/4) alleging therein that the applicant is not liable to maintain the register or record with regard to minimum wages and to display the notices and clearly stated that the notice dated 06/03/2014 is not applicable to the applicant. The applicant was not responsible for upkeeping and maintenance of ATMs.