Liability under the Minimum Wages Act is contingent on being in charge of the company, and authorization and sanction are required for filing a complaint.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Alok Anand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent State and Mr. Sunil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 21.01.2011 passed by the A.C.J.M., Rajmahal, in connection with O.C.R. No.06 of 2011 for the alleged commission of offence under section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1984 and the Rules, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal.

3. The case was registered alleging therein on a complaint filed by the complainant Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Bhagalpur I/C of Pakur under section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Rules alleging inter alia that the accused named therein engaged workers in providing unarmed security guards at Tata Indicom Tower, Duhwa and on inspection of the said establishment on 9.7.2010, a number of delinquencies on the part of the employer were detected with respect to which, an inspection report cum show cause notice as contained in letter no.26(111)/2010-PKR dated 20.10.2010 was sent to the petitioner through registered AD post for compliance, which remained non complied and accordingly it was prayed that the petitioner being the representative of the company should be prosecuted and after cognizance of offences be summoned to stand their trial under section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Rules.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner company M/s Lineage Power India Private Limited incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 by virtue of an agreement of supply of services entered into with the TTSL, Tata Teleservices Limited, provided operation and maintenance services to the various sites of the latter company in the State of Bihar and Jharkhand including the security services at the sites through its sub-contractor namely, G4S Facility Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. through an independent contract dated 1st day of October, 2008 extended from time to time, which arrangement of providing security services was terminated by TTSL, with effect from 20th Feb., 2010, and in support of that the e-mail dated 15th January, 2010 is annexed as Annexure-2 series. He submits that inspection was made on 9.7.2010 alleging that certain statutory provisions of the Act was not carried out and the case has been lodged against the petitioner and the petitioner at that time was not the employer and the employer was Tata Teleservices Limited and G4S Facility Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. He further submits that in view of sub-section 2(b) of Section 22(B) of the Act the complaint was required to be filed within six months however the same is filed belatedly and in that view of the matter the order taking cognizance is bad. He further submits that there is no averment in that complaint and the petitioner was looking into the affairs of the company in view of section 22 (C) of the Act and on that ground itself the entire criminal proceeding is fit to be quashed and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of “S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. versus Neeta Bhalla & Anr.” 2005 8 SCC 89. He further submits that M/s Lineage Power India Private Limited has already informed by way of reply to the show cause on 04.11.2010 that M/s Lineage Power India Private Limited is only taking care of maintenance and operations of the sites of Tata Wireless Info Private Limited. The security guards required at Tata Indicom Tower, Udhwa are provided by Tata Wireless Info Private Limited, Patna as per the contract between the security agency and Tata Wireless Info Private Limited. On these grounds, he submitted that the entire criminal proceeding is fit to be quashed.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.no.2 submits that the inspection was made on 9.7.2010 and cognizance was taken on 21.1.2