The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the employer definition under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and its application to the petitioners' case.

S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

( 1 ) ALL these applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been preferred by the two sets of petitioners. The petitioners Niroop Mohanty and Arun Narayan singh are petitioners in Cr. M. P. Nos. 109/2004, 110/2004 and 113/2004 whereas a. K. Choudhary is the petitioner in Cr. M. P. No. 151 of 2004. The petitioners are the Vice president of H. R. M. , Deputy Managing: director, Corporate Service and Head of h. R. /ir, Tube Division of Tata Iron and Steel company Ltd. (for short TISCO ). In Cr. M. P no. 109/2004 the petitioners have challenged the order dated December 19, 2002 passed in c/2 Case No. 4101/2002, whereby and whereunder, the learned Chief Judicial magistrate, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 against the. petitioners and one Imamuddin Khan. In Cr. M. P. No. 110/2004 the petitioners have challenged the order dated December 19, 2002 passed in C/2 Case No. 4102/2002 by learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 22-A of the minimum Wages Act, 1948 and one Asgar khan. In Cr. M. P. No. 113/2004 the petitioners have challenged the order dated january 2, 2003 passed in C/2 Case No. 5/2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners and one Ravi Kumar under Section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The other case being Cr. M. P. No. 151/2004 has been preferred by petitioner, A. K. Choudhary against the order dated January 2, 2003 passed in C/2 Case No. 11/2003 by learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and two others for the offence punishable under Section 22-A of the Minimum wages Act, 1948.

( 2 ) IN all the cases main plea taken by the petitioners is that the TISCO is not the principal employer of the workmen. The work is being performed by the contractors. In respect to C/2 case No. 11/2003 it is stated that the contractor is one Imamuddin Khan of Jamshedpur; in C/2 case No. 4102/2002 the contractor is Asgar khan of Jamshedpur; in C/2 Case No. 05/2003 one V. R. Construction is the contractor whereas in C/2 Case No. 11/2003 Raj Kumar and Company is the contractor of TISCO.

( 3 ) IT was submitted that the petitioners were not required to maintain register in Forms I and ii i. e. register of fine and register of deduction of damages or losses caused to the employer, being the employee of TISCO and not being the employer of workmen. On behalf of TISCO petitioners were also not liable to display the minimum rate of wages at the site as required under Minimum Wages Rules. No register showing the over time payment was required to maintain by petitioners as all these jobs were to be performed by the contractor under whom the workmen were performing their duties.

( 4 ) COUNSEL for the petitioners submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioners that they have violated the provisions and rules. The establishments of the contractors were inspected they being the employers of the workmen in respect of whose non-compliance of the Minimum Wages Act and Rules thereunder has been alleged.

( 5 ) IT appears that a number of cases were preferred on similar ground against the petitioners, Niroop Mohanty and Arun narayan Singh under Section 22-A of the minimum Wages Act, 1948. In all those cases similar plea was taken. In Cr. M. P. No. 1383 of 2003 petitioners Niroop Mohanty and Arun narayan Singh challenged the order dated january 2, 2003 passed in C/2 Case No. 06/2003 whereby and whereunder, learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur had taken cognizance of offence punishable under section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In the said case similar plea was taken by these petitioners as taken in the pre