The complaint must disclose the competence of the complainant to lodge the complaint and prosecute the accused, and identify the employer as defined under the Act for the purpose of prosecution.

1. This petition is directed against taking cognizance of an offence under Section 10(1) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 in C.C. No. 115 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, II Court, Hassan.

2. The petitioners are respectively the General Manager and Senior Branch Manager of Vijaya Bank, Bangalore and the Hassan Branch at Hassan. The petitioners seek to contend that the taking of cognizance by the Magistrate in the circumstances is a mechanical act and does not conform to the spirit of Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code'). The invalidity of the complaint for noncompliance with Section 204(2) of the Code is also sought to be pressed into service. It is also contended that the complainant has to show that he is competent to file the complaint under Section 9 of the Act. The infraction that is alleged in the complaint is no infraction at all inasmuch as there is no instance at all of any discrimination on the ground of sex amongst the employees to be prosecuted with a charge of this nature. It is contended that the petitioners are not shown to be employees" as defined under the Act and cannot therefore be prosecuted.

3. On behalf of the respondent, the claims of the petitioner is refuted and it is contended that the prosecution is in accordance with law.

4. The first contention that has been urged for the petitioner is that the Magistrate has used a typed proforma, wherein the blanks are filled up and even the words "cognizance is taken" under Section 190 of the Code is also typed. Whatever is not apparently inapplicable in the typed proforma is scored off and the Court has directed the issue of summons to the accused. The Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in S. Ramesh Vs. State of Karnataka by Hebbal Police Station and the order dated 12th March, 1999 in Criminal Petition No. 129 of 1997 wherein this Court has deprecated the use of printed forms for taking cognizance and use of a stereotyped form respectively in the two cases referred to above. Taking of cognizance by a Court essentially constitutes a reading of the complaint and coming to a conclusion that the complaint does disclose an offence which is required to be tried. Apparently use of typed forms or printed forms which also include a statement that cognizance is taken really does not inspire confidence that the Magistrate has really perused the complaint and has arrived at a conclusion that the offence alleged is disclosed. When a challenge is raised as to the invalidity of the order taking cognizance, the matter would have to be examined by the Court with reference to the complaint itself and if an offence is in fact disclosed, omission to use the expression "cognizance is taken" by the Court, would not be of any value having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay Vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and Another, AIR 1984 SC 718, which is to the effect that when the Court issues process it means, the Court has taken cognizance of the offence and it is the visible manifestation of the act of taking cognizance. But in cases of this nature, where the Magistrate mechanically signs a filled up form, it may be difficult to arrive at a conclusion that the process of "taking of cognizance" has actually been complied with. In the circumstances of the case, it appears to me that the taking of cognizance by the Court appears to be mechanical and cannot be sustained.

5. A complaint that has been filed by a party like the one in question must disclose prima facie that the complainant has been empowered to lodge the complaint in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 9 of the Act specifies who are investigators and who could lodge the complaint. The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central I, Bangalore) must have disclosed in the complaint that he has jurisdiction under the Act to inspect and lodge a complaint against the accused. It is essential that the complai