1. This is an application under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by P. K. Bahal, the then Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India (Corporation, in short) at Patna for quashing order dated 3-7-1995 recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 666/M/95 whereby and whereunder cognizance of offence was taken under S. 10 of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 ("1976 Act", in short) as also to quash the entire complaint case.

2. The facts, in brief, are that vide Annexure-1 the Labour Enforcement Officer, (Central),Patna forwarded complaint under S. 10 of the 1976 Act stating therein that the 1976 Act and Rules made thereunder were applicable to the accused and his establishment, but on inspection held on 4-7-1994 it was found that the petitioner had failed to maintain the register in Form-D in contravention of S. 8 of the 1976 Act read with Rule 6 of the Rules made thereunder.

3. The main point, as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner which has come up for decision of this Court, is whether the petitioner being the Senior Divisional Manager, could have been made accused in this case, he not being an employer within meaning of S. 10 of the 1976 Act. Another argument was that the complainant, the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) was not authorized to file the complaint within the meaning of S. 12 of 1976 Act but this argument was not subsequently pressed in view of the Notification issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour dated 26-12-1989 bearing S.O. No. 143 under which the Labour Enforcement Officers (Central) were authorized to file complaint in the Courts in respect of offences under S. 10 of the 1976 Act.

4. In support of main point urged, learned counsel has relied upon a decision in the case of P. M. John V/s. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 1960 Kerala 251. In that case preliminary objection was raised about maintainability of the writ application in which the Divisional Manager, Assistant Divisional Manager and the Branch Manager were made respondents and their Lordships of Kerala High Court held that there was no provision under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (the 1956 Act, in short) or Rules or Regulations authorizing a Divisional Manager to represent the Corporation in any Court within the division over which he exercised administrative control. It was also held that, therefore, the Corporation was not represented in that petition.

5. In this connection it was pointed out that under S. 10 of the 1976 Act it was the "employer" who could be punished with a term of imprisonment or with fine, as mentioned therein, if he had omitted or failed to maintain any register or other document in relation to workers employed by him, having been required to do so under 1976 Act, as also for such other acts and omissions as mentioned in the section.

6. Sec. 2(f) defines "employer" as having the meaning assigned to it in clause (f) of S. 2 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Sec. 2(f) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, defines "employer" in following terms :

"2(f) - "Employer" means, in relation to any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield.

plantation, port, railway company or shop-

(i) belonging to, or under control of, the Central Government or State Government, a person, or authority appointed by the appropriate Government for the supervision and control of employees, or where no person or authority has been so appointed, the head of the Ministry or the Department concerned.

(ii) belonging to, or under the control of, any local authority, the person appointed by such authority for the supervision and control of employees or where no person has been so appointed, the chief executive officer of the local authority.

(iii) in any other case, the person, who, or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway