ARYA A P Vs. R T SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since matter involved in all the three cases are of same nature, they are being disposed of by this common order. The case of the petitioners of Cr. M.P. No. 1159 of 2003 is that it is alleged in the prosecution report that in course of inspection of Pariwar Sansthan Plaza Dispensary Complex, Telco Town, Jamshedpur, the petitioners are said to have violated the provisions of Sections 12(1) and 18 as well as Rule 1950 and following violations were found which are given herein below:

(2.) It is also submitted that Pariwar Kalyan Sansthan Plaza Dispensary, Complex (PKS) is a society under the Society Registration Act, 1860 having registration No. 498/83-84 of Societies Registration Act and it was submitted on their behalf that liability and responsibility of maintaining records/registers of various nature for various purposes, as alleged in the prosecution report (Annexure-1) is neither of these petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 nor of Telco, but they have been falsely named as accused in the prosecution report/complaint. It was further pointed out that Section 19 of Minimum Wages Act provides that an Inspector under the Act can be appointed by the State Government by duly publication in Gazette Notification. The Inspector will be appointed for a specific area and there is no specific statement or averment in the prosecution report as to when and by which notification and for which area the opposite party has been appointed as Inspector under the Act. It is also pointed out that under Section 22- B(l)(a) of Minimum Wages Act provides that there must be sanction for prosecution by appropriate Government or an officer authorized by it in this behalf. Section 22-B(l)(b) also provides that the complaint can be made by Inspector or with the sanction of an Inspector. In the instant case, there is no specific averment in this regard against the petitioners.

(3.) The case of the petitioners of Cr. M.P. No. 1174 of 2003 is that there is no specific statement in the prosecution report that the inspecting team or the complainant-O.P. No. 2 found any labourers working there during or before the inspection and this point is very relevant for constituting alleged offence. It is also submitted that the allegation in the prosecution report/complaint do not constitute offence alleged because allegations are vague and that the petitioners are employers and they have engaged labourers in schedule employment. Further, there is no allegation that O.P. No. 2 found persons working there in schedule employment and were engaged by the petitioners. It was further submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioners were required to maintain register as alleged in Annexure-1 which they have failed to maintain and there is no specific averment in Annexure-1 by the O.P. No. 2 that showcause letter contained in Memo No. 2383 dated July 28, 2002 were issued and served on the petitioners and the prosecution report does not contain copy of the Memo No. 2383 dated July 28, 2002 and receipt showing services on the petitioners. It is also submitted that cognizance has been taken in mechanical way.