J.KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application petitioner prayed for quashing the order dated 19.2.2004 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder he took cognizance of the offence against the petitioners under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

(2.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are not the employer as defined under section 2(f) of the Payment of Gratuity Act therefore, no offence made out against them. It is further submitted that the gratuity had already been paid to the employees, thus in that circumstances also, no offence is made out. It is submitted that the order by which the cognizance has been taken is an abuse of the process of court, thus the same cannot be sustained by this Court.

(3.) HAVING heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. It is an admitted position that East Bhagatdih Colliery is owned by B.C.C.L, a Government Company. It is also admitted position that petitioner no. 1 is Director (Technical) B.C.C.L whereas petitioner no. 2 is Chief General Manager of Kustore area of B.C.C.L. It is also admitted that East Bhagatdih Colliery comes under the Kustore area of B.C.C.L .In the counter affidavit filed by O.P. No. 2 it has been stated at para 8 that petitioner no. 2 is the Disciplinary Authority, passing the bill and issuing cheques for payment etc. It is also stated that petitioner no. 1 has the ultimate control over all the affairs of mines of B.C.C.L, and is also allocating funds for the proper running of said mines and projects. No rejoinder to said counter affidavit has been filed. Thus the aforesaid statement made in the counter affidavit remain undisputed by the petitioners.