- (1.) PETITIONERS have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding pending against them vide P. G. case No. 72 of 2004 pending in the Court of Smt. Kusum Kumari, Judicial magistrate, Dhanbad, as also for quashing the order dated March 15, 2004. whereby the cognizance of the offences relating to violation of provisions of Section 7 (3) of the Payment of gratuity Act, 1972 for the breach of Rules 3 (2)and 8 (1) (i) of the Payment of Gratuity (Central)Rules, 1972 was taken against them. The main grounds advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the prayer is that: 1. the learned Court below while passing the order of cognizance has acted mechanically without application of judicial mind and without passing any order of condonation of delay in filing the complaint.
(2.) THAT the complainant/opposite party No. 2 is not competent to file the complaint against the petitioners under Section 11 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and therefore, the order of cognizance as passed by the learned Court below on the basis of such complaint, is totally illegal.
(3.) THAT the petitioners have been cited as accused on behalf of the employer company as "nominated owner", though there is no concept of "nominated owner" under the Payment of gratuity Act and, therefore, no prosecution can be initiated for the alleged violation of the provisions of Act, against the present petitioners.;