SATYADEO PRAKASH SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MISHRA , J. - In this case the petitioners have - challenged the order dated 18.1.1994 taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 19 (b) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter called the Act). The petitioner No. 1 is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company, namely M/s Kalyanpur Cement Limited, Banjari. The petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director and the petitioner No. 3 is the Technical Director of the said company. The complainant opposite party No. 2 is the Labour Superintendent, Govt. of Bihar, claiming to be Inspector appointed under the Act has filed the complaint petition, inter alia, on the ground that the company did not pay the bonus for the year 1992 -93, which is a mistake for the year 1990 -91, within the statutory period, i.e., on or before February, 1992 and, as such, the company and its officials have violated the provisions of the Act. On receipt of the complaint petition the learned chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offence against the petitioners which is under challenge in this application, as stated above.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the opposite party No. 2 being a Labour Superintendent under the State Govt. and/or any such officer of the State Govt. has not been vested with the power to file complaint petition for violation of the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel has challenged the order taking cognizance of the alleged offence on the grounds firstly, that the Labour Superintendent, in the instant case, is not authorised by the competent authority to file such complaint petition for violation of the provisions of the Act. Secondly, since the company has not been made an accused, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted, particularly, when there is absolutely no allegation made against petitioners, inasmuch as, they are neither incharge nor looking after the day - to -day affairs of the company. While developing his argument learned counsel submits that the company is engaged in manufacture and sale of cement which has already been declared a controlled industry in terms of Section 2 of the Industry (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951, and as such it is the Central Govt. which is the appropriate government to initiate such proceeding and not the State Govt. It is further submitted that the company has suffered huge loss to the extent of more than 10 crores which is the cause of further deterioration of the financial position of the company resulting some delay in payment of Bonus for which the company had requested for extension of the period but the authority has rejected the prayer and, ultimately, the company filed an application in terms of Section 36 of the Act which is still pending.

(3.) FROM mere perusal of the provision, as quoted above, it appears that in such cases either the Regional Labour Commissioner or the Labour Commissioner specially authorised can file complaint for violations of any provisions of the Act. Admittedly, in the instant case neither the Regional Labour Commissioner nor the Labour Commissioner has filed the complaint petition. As stated above, the cement company has been declared to be a controlled industry and for all practical purposes the Central Government is the appropriate government in such cases and the officers authorised in terms of Section 30 of the said Act can only initiate the proceeding. As stated above, the Labour Superintendent, who is in 'service of the State Government, neither authorised nor empowered under the provision of the Act to initiate criminal proceeding against the petitioners for alleged violations of the provisions of the Act. Despite of the sufficient opportunity given to the counsel no material has been produced in order to show that the complainant is specially authorised by the Central Government to initiate such proceeding.