SREERAM CONSTRUCTION Vs. SK S ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisional applications are directed against the orders of retrial of complaints for violation of Sections 18(2) and 19(2)(a) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 read with Rule 22(1) of the Minimum Wages Rules, 1951 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Midnapore in Criminal Motions Nos.253/1988 and 21/1989 which arose out of the orders of quashing of the connected proceedings by the Learned S.D.J.M. Midnapore.

(2.) Mr. Das learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, challenged the impugned orders in these revisional applications on two grounds, namely, that it has not been staled in the petition of complaints how the partners of the firm are responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the firm and in what way they are responsible to it. The other point was that the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 26-B of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 was not followed in both the cases and on both the above grounds, the complaints are liable to be quashed.

(3.) It appears from the petition of complaint that summons were issued upon the partners of the firm and there is no whisper in the said complaint as to how these partners are responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company or in what way they are responsible to it. Mr. Das referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1979 LAB I.C. 152 (Maya Chandra and Ors. v. Inspector, Minimum Wages Officer and Ors.) where it has been held that it is necessary against any partner or Director of a firm or a company to state that they are responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company or in what way they are responsible to it and failure to do so is fatal to the prosecution. In the present case too, I find that the proceedings suffer from the same infirmities. Mr. Ghosh appearing on behalf of the O.P. contended that the definition "employer" as appearing in Section 2(e) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 shall be enough for the purpose but I am not in a position to agree with that submission of the learned Advocate for the O.P. in view of the decision referred to above and that too being based on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1977 Cal. H.C.N. 374 at page 378.