The main legal point established in the judgment is that the judicial magistrate had jurisdiction to inquire into and try the contraventions alleged against the petitioners, and the prosecutions were not barred by limitation.

( 1 ) THESE criminal petitions are under Section 482 of the code of criminal procedure (the code for short ). These petitions are listed for admission. Learned senior standing counsel for the central government was served with the cbpy of the petition in each of these petitions. The matters were heard regarding admission.

( 2 ) SINCE the questions involved in these petitions are the same, these petitions are disposed of by this common order. The original order shall be kept in the record and proceedings in criminal petition No. 145 of 1989 and the copies thereof shall be retained in the record and proceedings of the remaining petitions.

( 3 ) FACTS in cr. P. No. 145 of 1989mahadevappa the petitioner has prayed to set aside the order dated 30-6-1988 made by the learned judicial magistrate first class, ii court, at mangalore, in c. c. No. 7897 of 1988, on his file and to quash the proceedings instituted against him in the said case.

( 4 ) THE labour enforcement officer (central), government ofindia - the respondent, lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 29-6-1988 alleging the contravention of Rule 21 (4-a) of the minimum wages (central) rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the rules of 1950 ).

( 5 ) THE respondent alleged in the complaint that he was the labour enforcement officer (central), mangalore and an inspector appointed under Section 19 of the minimum wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the act of 1948), that the petitioner is an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (e) of the act of 1948, that the assistant labour commissioner (central), mangalore, inspected the establishment of the petitioner, viz. , stone quarry at hathalgeri on 25-6-1987, that the stone "quarry carried on by the petitioner is a schedule employment under the Provisions of the act of 1948 and that the petitioner had not sent the annual return for the year ending 31-12-1987 in form iii so as to reach before 1-2-1988 as required under Rule 21 (4-a) of the rules of 1950 to the assistant labour commissioner (central), mangalore, who is an inspector appointed under the Provisions of the act of 1948 for the area. He further alleged that the assistant labour commissioner (central), mangalore, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 4-4-1988 with acknowledgment due, that the petitioner received it on 7-4-1988 and that inspite of the receipt , of the show-cause notice, the petitioner did not submit the annual return.

( 6 ) THE learned magistrate took the complaint on his file inc. c. No. 7897 of 1988 on 30-6-1988, he took cognizance of the contravention alleged against the petitioner on the same day and directed summons to the petitioner making it, returnable by 30-9-1988. On 30-9-1988 having found the petitioner absent despite the service of summons, the learned magistrate directed issue of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner.

( 7 ) IT is the order dated 30-6-1988 that is sought to be set as idein this petition. The petitioner also wants the proceedings instituted against him quashed.

( 8 ) FACTS in cr. P. No. 148 of 1989satyappa the petitioner has prayed to set aside the order dated 29-6-1988 made by the learned judicial magistrate first class, ii court, mangalore, in c. c. No. 7851 of 1988 on his file and to quash the proceedings instituted against him in the said case.

( 9 ) THE labour enforcement officer (central), government ofindia - the respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 28-6-1988 alleging the contravention of Rule 21 (4-a) of the rules of 1950 punishable under Section 22-a of the act of 1948.

( 10 ) THE respondent alleged that the petitioner was running a stone quarry at hathalgeri, that it was a schedule employment under the Provisions of the act of 1948, that the petitioner was the employer within the meaning of Section 2 (e) of the said Act, that the assistant labour commissioner (central), mangalore inspected the establishment of the petitioner viz. , the stone qu