The authority of the Labour Officer to inspect the work site under Section 19 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and the timeliness of the complaint under Section 22B were the central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Kuldip Singh, J.

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing summoning order dated 29.9.2010, order dated 24.9.2011 fixing the case for putting notice of accusation and criminal proceedings in Case S. Act No. 84-III/2010 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Joginder Nagar.

2. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 had filed a complaint against petitioner alleging that R.P.Rana, Labour Officer, Mandi Zone, inspected UHL Stage-III HEP, Chullah on 28.1.2010 at 1.30 p.m. under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short ‘Act’) and the H.P.Minimum Wages Rules, 1978 (for short ‘Rules’). The Labour Officer found that the petitioner had employed 18 workers. It has been alleged that the contractor did not maintain workers record/register. The contractor did not produce for inspection of the record/register on demand of the Labour Officer. The wage slips were not issued to the workers. The abstracts of the Act and Rules were not displayed nor names of inspecting authorities were displayed. The Labour Officer had issued notice dated 1.2.2010 but the employer failed to comply the Act and the Rules. The complainant is authorized by the Labour Commissioner, H.P. to lodge the complaint. The complaint has been filed under Section 18 (2) (3) of the Act. The petitioner has been made accused in the case.

3. It has been stated that learned Judicial Magistrate issued notice to the petitioner without application of mind. The application of the petitioner seeking discharge was wrongly dismissed. The complaint is vague, the allegations in the complaint do not constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioner.

4. The Act does not provide inspection by the Labour Officer. The Inspector has been authorized to inspect the work site under Section 19 of the Act. R.P.Rana, Labour Officer, Mandi Zone had no authority to inspect the work site. The alleged inspection carried out by R.P.Rana, Labour Officer was illegal. In addition, no Inspector has been empowered to inspect the work site in terms of Section 19 of the Act. The alleged inspection carried out by R.P.Rana was against the Act.

5. The complaint does not show which parts of the works sites of UHL Stage-III HEP were inspected where violations were found. The complaint only says about the contractor, who was found in violation during alleged inspection at works site. The naming of Project Manager BHEL as accused is against law, no allegations have been made against the petitioner in the complaint. The allegations are only against the contractor. The complaint is time barred. The complaint against the petitioner is groundless.

6. The notice of inspection dated 28.1.2010 was not given to the petitioner. At the time of alleged inspection, the petitioner was not present on the spot. The proceeding of inspection was not got signed from the petitioner or any representative posted at the work site. The report is bad in law. The Rule 26 B of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 and para materia Rules of the State provide that employer must be intimated regarding the infringement of the Act and the Rules. The employer must be given an opportunity to rectify the infringement. But in the present case, no notice was given to rectify the alleged infringement or defect. The complaint is defective. The Court has erred in taking cognizance. The summoning order has been passed in routine without application of mind.

7. The respondents have filed the reply in which preliminary objection of maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been taken. It has been stated that the petitioner is delaying the proceeding. On merits, it has been stated that the Labour Officer/Inspector has been authorized by the appropriate Government under Section 19 of the Act. The petitioner has not impleaded the concerned Labour Officer, hence petition is not maintainable for want of necessary parties. The petitioner is having control and su