- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the entire criminal proceeding initiated against them by virtue of complaint petition filed by the Labour Superintendent, Deoghar (Respondent No. 2), as contained in Annexure -6, on the basis of which, T.R. Case No. 867 of 1997 was instituted against the accused persons, and cognizance was taken u/s 22 B of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (herein after referred to as the 'Act') by order dated 21.4.1997, as contained in Annexure 8. From perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that the petitioner company, namely, M/s Metrograph Company Private Ltd. has been made the main accused. The petitioner no. 2 has been made accused being the Managing Director of the said Company. As regards petitioner nos. 3 to 6, who have also been arrayed as accused in this case, it is no where mentioned in the complaint as to under what capacity they have been made accused. It further appears from the complaint petition contained in Annexure -6, that it is no where mentioned therein that the accused persons had engaged employees in 'Scheduled Employment' in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and thereby they had violated the various provisions of the Act. The complaint petition only speaks that the accused persons were not maintaining certain registers and records and thereby, they had violated the provisions of Section 18 of the Minimum Wages Act and Rules 21(4), 22, 25(2) and 26(2) of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950. It appears that on the basis of the said complaint petition, cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar in T.R. No. 867 of 1997 by order dated 21.4.1997, as contained in Annexure -8 and the case was transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate for further process in accordance with law.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned action taken by the respondent no. 2 is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as it is no where mentioned in the entire complaint petition, whether the employers were engaging employees in any 'Schedule Employment' in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. It has also been submitted that even the accused/petitioner no. 2 has been arrayed being the Managing Director of the Company but it is not stated that under what capacity, the other petitioners have been made accused, though they were the Directors in the Company. This apart, it is no where mentioned that the petitioners Nos.2 to 6 were either in charge of or were responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company. Learned counsel further submitted that in absence of necessary details, cognizance could not be taken by the Court below.;