JUDGMENT :

D.P. CHOUDHURY, J.

The captive application is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the entire proceeding in a Claim Misc. Case No.6 of 1991 including the order dated 25.3.1991 of taking cognizance of offence under Section 21(4), 25(2), 26(2) and (6) of the Minimum Wages Act and order dated 23.4.2005 denying exercise of jurisdiction under Section 205 Cr.P.C. to dispense with attendance of the petitioner.

2. Mr. K.K. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the opposite party No.2, who is the Assistant Labour Officer, Bargarh filed Claim Case under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter called “the Act”) on 19.3.1991 in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Padampur and Authority appointed under the Act. Learned Magistrate without following the provisions of law took it as a complaint filed under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance of the offence under Sections 21(4), 25(2), 26(2) and (6) of the Act and then issued summon to present petitioner to appear. According to him, the entire order of taking cognizance is wrong and illegal because the prosecution report filed is not to be treated as a complaint as per Section 190 Cr.P.C. but it is simply a claim case to be followed with orders to be passed under sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act. So, the learned Magistrate committed error in assuming the jurisdiction of not being authorized under the Act.

3. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the summon could not be served in correct address, learned Court below committed error by issuing D.W. on 3.4.2000 and N.B.W. of arrest on 3.7.2001. However, the petitioner learnt that there is a case pending long since in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Padampur. He made petition on 1.2.2005 under Section 205 Cr.P.C. to dispense with personal attendance of the petitioner but that was also rejected on the ground that D.W. and N.B.W. have already been issued.

4. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that according to the decision reported in 2003 (II) OLR 219; Debasis Samantaray v. State of Orissa and another and (2004) 29 OCR 354; Sumanta alias Sumanta Kumar Das v. State of Orissa, there is no bar to consider the petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C. even if D.W. and N.B.W. of arrest have been issued against the accused. So, the learned Magistrate erred in law by passing the illegal order on 23.4.2005 in rejecting the petition filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C. to dispense with the attendance of the petitioner. Thus, he challenged the entire proceeding with prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including all those impugned orders passed against the petitioner.

5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel without disputing the fact submitted that Section 20 of the Act empowers the learned S.D.J.M., Padampur-cum-Authority under the Act to pass order as deemed fit and proper. She also fairly submitted that it is a Claim Case warranting the procedure to be adopted as if it is a civil case. But there is also provision in the Act to proceed against the violator on the criminal side to punish the offender.

DISCUSSION

6. Section 20 of the Act is placed below for reference :

“20. Claims.-(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette appoint [any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation or any officer of the Central Government exercising functions as a Labor Commissioner for any region or any officer of the State Government not below the rank of Labor Commissioner or any] other officer with experience as a judge of a Civil Court or as a Stipendiary Magistrate to be the authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages [or in respect of the payment of remuneration for days of rest or for work done on such days under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 13 or of wages at the overtime rate under section 14] to