JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, the learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Shresha Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Union of India.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.12.2013 by which cognizance of offence under the Minimum Wages Act has been taken against the petitioner. Further prayer is made for quashing the orders dated 20.09.2016, 24.01.2017, 26.07.2018, 27.03.2019 and 27.06.2019 whereby bailable warrant, non-bailable warrant, processes under section 82 and under section 83 Cr.P.C. and permanent warrant, respectively, have been issued against the petitioner.

3. The complaint was filed stating therein that:

(A) The above named accused person (petitioner) is the employer as defined under Section 2(e) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 [hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’] and engaged for work Setting up 400 K.V. GIS Switch Yard from ‘A’ Plant DVC BTPS PO and PS Bokaro Thermal, District Bokaro which is a schedule employment under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Minimum rates of Wages fixed vide Notification No. 1285(E) dated 20.05.2009 of the Govt. of India. The complainant is an Inspector under Section 19 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

(B) Having jurisdiction over the establishment of accused person(petitioner) and he inspected it on 20.05.2013 and detected the above offences and served the inspection report cum show-cause Notice No. 26/46/2013-B dated 24.05.2013 through Regd. A.D. post wherein the accused person (petitioner) was asked to comply with the provisions of the Act and Rules thereunder and report compliance with the stipulated period direct to the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad endorsing a copy of the same to the complainant. But the accused person (petitioner) failed to comply the directive and hence this complaint is filed.

(C) That the accused person (petitioner) contravened the provisions of the Act and Rules rendered himself liable for prosecution. Therefore, it is prayed that the cognizance be taken and the accused person be summoned to stand trial and punished according to Law.

4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner by way of referring the several orders of the learned trial court submits that the petitioner has not received the summon order and only after knowing that order/process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued, they came to know about the pendency of this case and thereafter this petition has been filed before this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the petitioner was Director at the time of occurrence and he further submits that the company is not made accused and only the petitioner has been made accused and in that view of the matter, the prosecution is bad in law. To buttress his this argument, he relied in the case of Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours (P) Ltd. 2012 (5) SCC 661. Paragraph nos. 51 and 59 of the said judgment are quoted herein-below:

“51. We have already opined that the decision in Sheoratan Agarwal runs counter to the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh which is by a larger Bench and hence, is a binding precedent. On the aforesaid ratiocination, the decision in Anil Hada has to be treated as not laying down the correct law as far as it states that the Director or any other officer can be prosecuted without impleadment of the company. Needless to emphasise, the matter would stand on a different footing where there is some legal impediment and the doctrine of lex non cogit ad impossibilia gets attracted.

59. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the drag-net on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same