- (1.) The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer for quashment of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Case No. 96 of 1999 as well as quashment of the cognizance order dated 3.5.1999 by which the cognizance of the offence has been taken under Section 22(A) of the Minimum Wages Act. 1948 against the petitioners.
(2.) The prosecution story in short was that on 10.4.1997 the business premises of the petitioners was visited by the complainant-Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Katrasgarh Camp at Bermo, an Inspector under Section 19 of the Minimum Wages Act, and found carrying out the work of civil construction for Bokaro 'B' Plant. D.V.C.B.T.S: P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Thermal. District-Bokaro under the Chief Engineer: D.V.C. B.T.P.S. which was scheduled employment under the Minimum Wages Act. 1948 and that the rates of the wages were fixed by the Government of India by the notification dated 21.12.1995. During course of inspection the following offences were found: "The following notices were not displayed at the main entrance of the establishments its work spot-violation of Rule 22. (1) Notice containing Abstract from the Act and Rules made there under in English and Hindi. The following Registers were not kept at the work spot. (i) Muster Roll in violation of Rule 26(5). (ii) Register of Wages in violation of Rule 26(1)."
(3.) The Inspector Report-cum-Show-cause notice No. 26(60)/97-B dated 17.04.1997 was served by which the petitioners were asked to comply with the provisions of the Act and Rules made there under and to report compliance directly to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central). Dhanbad endorsing a copy to the complainant within the stipulated time. It is admitted that the petitioners had submitted their compliance vide letter No. 782715/123 on 29.4.1997 and accordingly the complainant asked the petitioners to produce the relevant records and register before him on 16.10.1997 so that the correctness of the compliance could be verified but the petitioners failed to comply the direction asking some more time to rectify the irregularities mentioned in the Inspection Report. Thereafter, the complainant again asked the petitioner to produce the relevant records and registers on 25.3.1999 but they did not, hence the complaint. In that manner, it was alleged that the petitioners contravened the provisions of the Act and s aforesaid which attracted offence under Section 22(A) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.;