NILOTPAL ROY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court has been invoked for quashing the order dated 28.6.2006 (Annexure -2), passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in C/7 Case No. 64 of 2006, whereunder cognizance of the offence under Section 10(I)(a) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 has been taken against the petitioners and one Radha Krishna Yadav, General Manager (Mines), Gua Iron Ore Mines, a unit of M/s Indian Iron & Steel Company.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that when the complainant - Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Chaibasa inspected Gua Iron Ore Mines, a unit of M/s Indian Iron & Steel Company, it was found that Form - ˜D' which was required to be maintained under the provisions, as contained in Section 8 of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 read with Rule 6 made thereunder, had not been maintained and as such, a complaint was filed not only against the General Manager (Mines) but also against these petitioners, who happened to be the Managing Director of IISCO, as well as the Executive Director, (C & M ), IISCO respectively, though these petitioners had nothing to do with the day to day affairs of Gua Iron Ore Mines nor they are the employers in terms of the provision of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, whereas only the employer can be held responsible for commission of the offence under Section 10(I)(a) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, if the provision of Section 8 of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 read with Rule 6 is contravened and, therefore, entire prosecution is bad so far these petitioners are concerned.

(3.) IN view of the stand taken on behalf of the parties, the first and foremost point falls for consideration as to whether these petitioners, being the Managing Director and the Executive Director (C & M), IISCO, are the ˜employers' in terms of the provisions of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 . The word ˜employer' has been defined in Section 2(c) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 , which reads as follow : - " ˜employer' has the meaning assigned to it in clause (f) of section 2 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972". Section 2 (f) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 defines ˜employer' which reads as follows : -