ORDER :

The present petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Case No. C-III-313/2009 including the order dated 22.06.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby the cognizance of the offence under Section 10 of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 (in short “the Act, 1976”) has been taken against the petitioner.

2. A complaint case being C-III-313/09 was lodged by the opposite party no.2- Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Dhanbad camp Ranchi alleging that while inspecting the establishment of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter to be referred as “the corporation”), Ranchi Branch-2 on 30.06.2008, found that the Branch Manager failed to maintain the register in Form ‘D’ at the place work and thus violated the provisions of rule 6 of the Equal Remuneration Rules, 1976 (in short “the Rules, 1976”) and Section 8 of the Act, 1976. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi vide order dated 22.06.2009 took cognizance of the offence under section 10 of the Act, 1976 against the Branch Manager- Sri Naresh Prasad Srivastava.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of the alleged incident, Shri Naresh Prasad Srivastava was working as Branch Manager in Ranchi Branch-2 of the corporation and was not an employer as alleged in the complaint. Though Sri Naresh Prasad Srivastava was posted as Branch Manager in the Ranchi Branch-2, however the O.S. Department of the corporation was responsible to maintain all the registers etc. in the said branch office under the relevant law. Form “D” under the Act, 1976 was also being maintained by the O.S. Department and it was not the duty of the Branch Manager to maintain any such register as required under the Act, 1976 for which separate arrangement has been made by the corporation. It is further submitted that the instant complaint was filed after about one year from the date of alleged inspection i.e. 30.06.2008 and as such the complaint was also barred by limitation in view of the provision of Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is further submitted that all the documents as required including Form “D” were subsequently produced before the opposite party no. 2 and there was no occasion for him to file complaint against the Branch Manager. As such, the instant proceeding being an abuse of the process of law, is fit to be quashed.

4. The learned counsel for the opposite parties while referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 submits that the Branch Manager of the corporation was responsible for the supervision, control and day to day affairs of the Branch Office being the employer under Section 2(c) of the Act, 1976. It is further submitted that Branch Manager is the employer in respect of the said branch on which he has ultimate control, power of supervision and is responsible for day-to- day affairs.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily contended that under Section 10 of the Act, 1976, it is the “employer” who could be prosecuted for the omission or failure in maintaining any register or document in relation to the workers employed by him and since the Branch Manager of Ranchi Branch-2 of the said corporation was not responsible for supervision and control of the employees, the impugned order suffers from error of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on a judgment of Patna High Court rendered in the case of P. K Bahal Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 2001 Cri.L.J 1085 wherein cognizance of the offence under section 10 of the Act, 1976 taken against the Senior Divisional Manager of LIC has been quashed.

6. Section 2(c) of the Act, 1976 defines the term “employer” which reads as follows:-

“(c) “employer” has the meaning assigned to it in clause (f) of section 2 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1