SHIRIS PALLAM RAJU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The quash petitioners in all the three petitions are self same persons, accused 1 and 2 by names S.Pallam Raju, General Manager and B.P.Rao, CMD of BHEL, Jaipur, Adilabad District and New Delhi respectively. In the Summary Trial Cases 62/2013, 50/2013 and 58/2013 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Chenoor, cognizable for the offences under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short 'the 1970 Act') in STC.Nos.62 and 58 of 2013 and under Section 200 Cr.P.C and Section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956.

(2.) In all the matters, Labour Enforcement Officer, Central is the complainant whose complaint for the respective offences taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate by allowing the Summary Trial Cases, same after service of summons now seeking for impugnment. One of the grounds urged common in all the petitions is that without impleadment of BHEL, even a Government owned company, a statutory body, jurisdictional persona, under the principle the question of impleadment of officers does not arise. Leave about the other contentions that arise in seeking to quash the cognizable proceedings. On that ground, the argument is two fold. One is particularly by referring to Section 25 of the 1970 Act which speaks management of the company as accused vis- -vis any person respectively for day to day affairs in management is mandatory and by not impleading BHEL as accused as non-arrary and cognizance not even the accused but only the accused officer thereby unsustainable.

(3.) Coming to STC.No.50/2013 covered by Crl.P.No.4106 of 2014, it is the further contention that based on the same principle, even there is no similar provision under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956 that in the absence of any provision of maintainability of the complaint against the officers without arraying the company, there can be no question about the liability for the officers for the acts of the company and thereby on that ground also under the general law, prosecution is not sustainable.