The definition of 'employer' under the Minimum Wages Act includes executives responsible for supervisory roles, allowing them to be prosecuted.

JUDGMENT

This Original Petition has been filed challenging Ext.P4 complaint filed by the 1st respondent against the 3rd respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur and Ext.P7 summons issued by the learned Magistrate.

2. The petitioner is a telecommunication service provider. It is alleged in the Original Petition that the 3^rd respondent is an executive of the petitioner company. The petitioner is aggrieved by the prosecution initiated by the 1^st respondent against the 3^rd respondent under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’). The 1^st respondent inspected M/s. Vodafone Cellular Limited, Building No.159/ABC, Caltex Tower, Opposite Civil Station, Kannur 2 at 1.30 pm on 02.03.2015. During the inspection, it is noticed that 5 persons were employed therein as workman. It was found that the employer failed to maintain Register of Wages, Muster Roll and keep visit Book and thus contravened Section 18 of the Act read with Rules 29(1), 29(2), 29(5) and 29(8) of the Kerala Minimum Wages Rules. Hence, after issuing the show cause notice, Ext.P4 complaint was filed against the 3rd respondent for the offence under Section 22 of the Act. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file and issued Ext.P7 summons to the 3rd respondent.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the employer and the 3^rd respondent is only working as an executive under the petitioner and hence, the prosecution lodged against the employee will not lie. The learned counsel further submitted that the offence under Section 22 of the Act would lie only against the employer. It is true that the prosecution can be lodged only against the employer. However, the crucial question is whether the 3^rd respondent would fall within the de the employer under the Act. The term 'employer' as defined under Section 2 (e) of the Act includes any person responsible to the owner for the supervision and control of the employees or for the payment of wages. Thus, any other person acting in general management or control of an establishment would also fall within the definition of the employer. It is an admitted case that the 3^rd respondent is an executive under the petitioner. The question whether he is in general management or control of the establishment and responsible for the supervision and control of the employee or for the payment of wages is a matter of evidence.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Ext.P3 registration certificate wherein the employer’s name has been shown as Senior Vice President / Chief Operating OfÏcer. However, inasmuch as the definition of the employer takes in any person responsible to the owner for the supervision and control of the employees or for the payment of wages, there is nothing wrong in proceeding against such a person. Therefore, I am of the view that the prosecution cannot be quashed. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed.