D.N.UPADHYAY, J. - (1.) THIS W.P.(Cr.) has been filed on behalf of petitioner Kalyan Maity, the then General Manager (Mines), Kiriburu Iron Ore Mines of Steel Authrity of India Ltd. (Raw Materials Division), to quash the order of cognizance dated 27.05.2011 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in connection with C/7 Case No. 102 of 2011 Whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to be summoned to face trial for the offences punishable u/s 22A of the Minimum Wage Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short for short) be and the order dated 05.09.2011 by which thepetition dated 18.08.2011 filed by the petitioner was rejected and the case was adjourned for substance of accusation.
(2.) IT is submitted that M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. has not been made accused in the present case and the petitioner was not responsible for the day to day working at the relevant site rather Shri Ravi Narayan Satpati, Assistant General Manager cum Head (Personnel Administration), Kiriburi Iron Ore Mines was the incharge and he may be held liable to answer the charges, if any. The petitioner has made this contention in writing before the Court in the petition dated 18.08.2011 and the Office Order dated 29.12.2008, Reference No. KIOM/GM/08/3660 was also enclosed to bring on record that Shri Ravi Narayan Satpati, Assistant General Manager cum Head (Personnel Administration), Kiriburi Iron Ore Mines was assigned to functions as head of Personnel and Administration Department; (i) Industrial Relation, (ii) Contract Labour Management, (iii) Liaison with Central and State Government Authorities, Compliance of Statutory obligations under various Labour Laws, and (iv) General Administration and Personnel Matters 2. It is also made clear that Shri Satpati will be the person responsible for the above mentioned functions. It is contended that the petitioner is not at all responsible for the offences, as alleged in the complaint. Furthermore, the company has not been made accused and therefore, the findings given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aneeta Hada Versus Godfather Travels and Tours (P) Ltd., 2012 5 SCC 661 para 32, 38 and 39 are relevant. The petitioner has also relied on the judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court in connection with Special Leave Appeal (Crl.) No(s).853 of 2007 dated 21.09.2007, the relevant part of the order is as under: "Appellants herein who are the Directors and Officers of th National Thermal Power Corporation, which is a company within the meaning of the provisions of Section 53 of the said Act, are sought to be prosecuted without the Company being impleaded as a party. The Statute provides for vicarious liability on the part of the officers concerned, although in law they may not be otherwise liable, only in the event the statutory requirements are fulfilled. In such a situation, it was obligatory on the part of the complainant respondents to comply with the statutory requirement by impleading the Company as a party as an accused."
(3.) ON the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that Section 22C(2) of the Act is applicable in respect of the petitioner and he cannot escape by transferring liability on the shoulder of other. It is very clear under Section 22C(2) of the Act which reads as follows: "Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection(1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is provided that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or that the commission of the offence is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, managing agent or any other officer of the company, such director, manager, managing agent or such other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be prosecuted against and punished accordingly." It is further submitted that the Court has rightly taken cognizance and the petitioner, who has been released on bail is liable to be prosecuted.;