Sabina, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the complaint No. 13905 dated 27.9.2007 (Annexure P -1) under Section 10 of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 ('Act' for short) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 27.9.2007 (Annexure P -2) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant has treated the Branch Manager, State Bank of Paitala, Sector 38 -C, Chandigarh as an employer. In fact, the registers are to be maintained by the head office and not by each branch office of the bank under Equal Remuneration Rules. Learned counsel has placed reliance on decision of this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. M -45123 of 2007 (Annexure P -5).
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the complainant by issuing notice had asked the petitioner to submit the necessary information. Instead of doing that petitioner had sought quashing of the complaint. In a similar situation, this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. M -45123 of 2007 has held as under: - Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of judgment of Kerala High Court Annexure P -5 in the case of Lord Krishna Bank & Anr. Vs. Labour Enforcement Officer, decided on 24.2.1998, it has been held in context to the definition of 'Employer and worker' as per the Payment of Gratuity Act that the words "the place where workers are employed" cannot be independently read divorced from the words "employer" and the "workers employed by him" and held that the registers are to be maintained at the head office and not at each branch of the Bank. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: - 10. It is seen from the statements of objections and reasons that the Act is enacted to provide for payment of equal remuneration to men and women workers for the same work or work of a similar nature and for prevention of discrimination in payment on the ground of sex. The object will not in any way be defeated it Form 'D' prescribed as per Rule 6 of the Rules is maintained in the Head Office of the Bank. Only due to the reason that it is stated in Rule 6 of the Rules that every employer shall maintain up to date a register in relation to the workers employed by him in Form 'D' at the place where the workers are employed, it cannot be said that registers are to be maintained in each branch of the Bank. The words "the place where the workers are employed" cannot be independently read divorced from the words "employer" and the "workers employed by him". As already stated, employer is the Bank and not the branch Manager. Workers are not employed by the branch Manager, but by the Bank. At the branch (not legible) employer. So, if a harmonious construction is given to the words contained in Rule 6 of the Rules bearing in mind the provisions in the Act and also the aims and reasons for enacting such provisions, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the registers are to be maintained at the Head Office and not at each branch of the Bank. It is not a case where such registers are not maintained at the Head Office of the Bank. In the circumstances, the insistence on the part of the first respondent that such registers are to be maintained at the branch level cannot be upheld. Such insistence on the part of the first respondent is uncalled for an opposed to the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules. Complaint is filed with the sole allegation that registers are not maintained at the branch. Taking cognizance of the complaint on the basis of such allegation and prosecuting the petitioners will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners had written a letter dated 24.10.2006 Annexure P -3 to the Labour Enforcement Officer, Jalandhar, informing that irregularities pointed out in the report of the complainant had been rectified and all the instructions in the letter written by the complainant had been duly complied with. The details of the rectification/compliance were enclosed with the letter. Vide Annexure P -4 dated 1.12.2006, the Labour Enforcement Officer, Jalandhar was informed that the petitioner had submitted a letter on compliance of the defects mentioned on the report dated 24.10.2006. The said letters were not taken on report, therefore they had again submitted a copy of compliance letter together with a copy of Form 'D' maintained in their office for the perusal of the complaint. I have considered all the facts and circumstances of this case. The complaint in the present case has been filed without confirming the fact whether the register in Form 'D' required, as per Rule 6 of the Equal Remuneration Act and Section 13(1)(b), in the head office of the South Indian Bank at Kerala had been maintained or not. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar without referring to any record by a vague order summoned the petitioners.
(3.) THE case of the petitioner is clearly covered by the decision of this Court reproduced above. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Criminal complaint No. 13905 dated 27.9.2007 (Annexure P -1) under Section 10 of the Act, and the summoning order dated 27.9.2007 (Annexure P -2), are set aside. Complainant would be at liberty to file a fresh petition in case it comes to the conclusion that relevant records were not being maintained by the head office.;