NEPAL DAS Vs. DEBASISH SHANNIGRAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner alleged that he has been falsely implicated on the basis of a complaint filed by the opposite party, herein who inter alia alleged violations of Rule 4(a), 4(b), 4(c) and 5 of the Payment of Bonus Rules, 1975 whereas he was summoned by Magistrate under Ss. 22/22A of the Contract Labour Act, 1970.

(2.) Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there is no existence of Sec. 22A in the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and Sec. 22 of Bonus Act does not pertain to any penal liability but comes with the heading "Reference of disputes under the Act". Therefore this complaint was lodged on the basis of prosecution under non-existence and non-applicable provision of law and as such it is liable to be dismissed in limine. After taking cognizance and also after issuance of process by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, under non-existence and non-applicable provision of law the matter was transmitted to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court at Bankura. However, transferee Magistrate by his order dtd. 19/3/2019 was pleased to take cognizance afresh under Sec. 28 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.

(3.) Mr. Ganguly in this context submits that the order of taking cognizance for the second time is also bad in law, as the learned Magistrate does not have the power to review its own order and to take cognizance in connection with the same allegation for the second time.