Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 and 2.
(2.) IN this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 13.8.2002, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Jamshedpur in C/2 case No. 1905 of 2002, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken as against the petitioner for the offence under section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act. The prosecution story as would appear from the complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2, Labour Superintendent, Jamshedpur, is that while carrying out inspection of M/s. Kanak Engineering (opposite party No. 3) on 9.7.2002, he had detected that there is a violation of rules 21(c), 22, 25(2), 26(1), 26(2) and 26(5) of the Minimum Wages Rules, 1951. After the prosecution report was submitted by the opposite party No. 2 herein, cognizance was taken as against the petitioner for the offence under section 22 A of the Minimum Wages Act.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order taking cognizance dated 13.8.2002 by submitting that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was the Managing Director of M/s. Tinplate Company of India Limited and the workers and the premises, which were inspected, in which the alleged violations of the Minimum Wages Rules were detected belonged to M/s. Kanak Engineering, who was the contractor of M/s. Tinplate Company of India Limited. He has further submitted that it was the responsibility of the contractor -M/s. Kanak Engineering for adhering to the provisions of Minimum Wages Rules and for maintaining the records and documents of the Firm. No liability, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, can be fixed for any omission or commission on the part of the contractor employed by M/s. Tinplate Company of India Limited.;