PRAKASH TEXTILE GUJ PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are original accused in criminal cases Nos. 167 and 168 of 1981 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 6 court Ahmedabad have filed this application under sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Code) praying for quashing these proceedings and the processes issued therein against the petitioners on the ground that these proceedings are ex-facie not maintainable.

(2.) The impugned criminal proceedings as filed against the petitioners refer to certain alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act). Respondent No. 2 herein who is the minimum wages inspector has filed the complaints against the petitioners on that ground. These complaints have resulted into the aforesaid two criminal cases against the petitioners. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate has issued process to the petitioners in these cases. The petitioners contention is that the Act itself does not apply to their establishment and hence there is no occasion for them to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules framed thereunder. In their contention is true it is obvious that the complaints are ex-facie not maintainable and are liable to be quashed as amounting to abuse of the process of court.

(3.) A few relevant facts may be noted in this connection. The petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act. The second petitioner is its managing director and third petitioner is its Director while the 4th petitioner is the Chief Executive of (he first petitioner company. This company is running a processing house in this city. The company obtains gray cloth from the market and processes the same for re-sale and/or processes ready-made cloth for and on behalf of other textile units/merchants on contractual basis . In para 5 of the petition it has been stated that the entire work of processing is done on ready made cloth and that the processing begins with the treatment of ready-made cloth. No weaving process is carried on by such processing houses. There are no looms whatsoever in the petitioners processing house. The petitioners therefore submit that in view of this situation under no circumstances can such processing house be classified as power loom industry. The aforesaid averments in the petition have remained uncontroverted on the record of this case. Rule was issued on this petition by D. C. Gheewala J. on 3 and it has reached final hearing before me today. Till today no affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents to controvert the factual averments made in the petition. It must therefore be taken as an uncontroverted position on the record of this case that petitioner No. 1 company is carrying on its business as a processing house where no looms whatsoever are being operated and that there is no question of the petitioner company running a power-loom factory.