USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 24.12.1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1834(M) of 1999. By the said order, on the official complaint, the learned Chief judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 22(A) of the Minimum Wages Act and summoned all the accused persons.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that on 2.9.1999, an inspection was conducted in the premises of M/S Usha International, Showroom, Exhibition Road and it was found that one Sri Dinanath, who was working as employee, was not being paid wages as prescribed by the Minimum Wages Act. It was alleged that Sri Dinanath was being paid a meager amount. After inspection, sanction from the competent authority was obtained and thereafter, a complaint was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate by the Labour Superintendent and Inspector, Minimum Wages Act, Patna. Since it was an official complaint by order dated 24.12.1999, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence under Section 22(A) of the Minimum Wages Act and summoned the petitioners.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. At the time of argument, Shri Rana Pratap Singh, learned Senior Counsel, who was assisted by Shri Mukesh Kant, learned advocate, submitted that the learned Magistrate had incorrectly taken cognizance of offences against all the accused persons. While referring to the complaint petition, it was argued that no averment was made in the complaint petition as to who was incharge at the relevant time where Sri Dinanath was alleged to be paid a meager amount. It was submitted that since the worker was functioning in the Company registered under the Companies Act, it was necessary for the complainant to indicate the role played by the specific persons. It was submitted that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who were Chairman and Managing Director respectively of Usha International Ltd. were directly or indirectly not associated in payment of meager amount to the worker as has been alleged in the complaint petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, at the time of hearing of the present petition, has confined his argument to the case of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 only. So far as petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 are concerned, it has not been disputed that order of cognizance in respect of them was incorrect. Shri Rana Pratap Singh, learned Senior Counsel has specifically pointed out the provision contained in Section 22(C) of the Minimum Wages Act, which is as follows: