Arya Travels rep. by G.P. Sahu and Another vs State of Bihar

Madhavendra Saran, J.—In this miscellaneous application filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short as the Code) prayer has been made for quashing the order dated April 16, 1996 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 384(M)/96, by which he has taken cognizance u/s 20(3) of the Payment of Wages Act and Rule 21 of Payment of Wages (Air Transport Services) Rules, 1968.

It appears that on April 16, 1996 Abhijeet Kumar, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Patna filed a petition of complaint against the petitioners in the Court of C.J.M., Patna for the offence punishable u/s 20(3) of the Payment of Wages Act and Rule 21 of Payment of Wages (Air Transport Services) Rules, 1968 on the ground that on October 26, 1995 the firm of the petitioners named Arya Travels was inspected and observed the following:

(i) The following notices have not been displayed in English and in the language of the majority of the persons employed which is Hindi:

(a) The wage period for which wages are payable as per Rule 11(1)0)

(b) For not less than two weeks in advance the days on which wages are to be paid as per Rule 11(1)(ii).

(c) The rates of wages and scales of allowance payable to persons employed as per Rule 11(1)(iii).

(d) The day of date on which unpaid wages are to be paid as per Rule 11(1)(iv).

(ii) Copies of all such notices and alterations as per Rule 11(1)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) have not been sent to the Inspector as per Rule ll(l)(iv).

(iii) Approved list of Acts and omission as per Rule-12 has not been displayed in English and in the languages of the majority of the persons employed which is Hindi.

(iv) Notice showing name and complete address of the Inspector has not been displayed as required under Rule 11(2).

(v) Notice containing abstracts from the Act and Rules made thereunder in Form XI has not been displayed in English and in the language of the majority of the persons which is Hindi as required under Rule 20 read with Section 25.

(vi) Form-I showing opening/ reopening/ discontinuance, abandonment, resumption and change in the ownership address etc. has not been submitted to the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Patna as required under Rule 3.

(vii) Register of Wages in Form-V as per Rule-4, Register of Deduction for damage or loss in Form-Ill as per Rule-5, Register of Advance in Form-IX as per Rule 17(3), Register of loan in Form-X as per Rule 18(3), Register of Muster Roll in Form-IV has not been kept at the work spot and Annual Return in Form-VIII-B for the year ending December 31, 1994 has not been submitted to the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Patna as per Rule 16.

The offences as observed by the complainant were incorporated in the inspection report-cum-show cause notice dated October 26, 1995 but the reply submitted by accused petitioners was not found to be satisfactory one and hence the complaint was filed. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated April 16, 1996 took cognizance u/s 20(3) of the Payment of Wages Act and Rule 21 of the Payment of Wages (Air Transport Services) Rules, 1968.

The submission of learned Counsel is that the petitioners Arya Travels is a partnership firm having its head office at Ranchi and is engaged in the business of Travel Agency i.e. booking of tickets for persons who are desirous of travelling by air by Indian Air Lines, Sahara India etc. Petitioner No. 2 is Manager of petitioner No. 1, Travel Agency, at Patna Branch. His further submission is that Patna office of the petitioner''s Travel Agency is registered under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 bearing registration No. PT-31904 registered in the year 1988. Further submission is that the Payment of Wages (ATS) Rules, 1968 are applicable against persons employed in Air Transport Service and the same is not applicable against the petitioners. Learned Counsel further pointed out that Payment of Wages Act is a Central Act and therefore, the same is also not applicable against the petitioners because the petitioner''s Travel Agency had been registered under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act and only the Labour Enforcement Officer of the Bihar Government is authorised to inspect the petitioner''s premises. Learned Counsel further pointed out that from Annexure-4 it appears that the petitioner''s establishment was inspected under the impression that the same was functioning under Indian Airlines.

From what has been argued it appears that petitioner''s firm Arya Travels is engaged in the business of Travel Agency. Petitioner''s agency stands registered under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act vide Annexure-2 dated December 14, 1988. Admittedly, Payment of Wages Act is a Central Act and it governs only the Central Government Organisation. As argued by learned Counsel, Payment of Wages Act has no application against the petitioners firm because the same has been registered under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act and there are provisions in the Bihar Act similar to the provisions made in the Payment of Wages Act.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the business carried on by the petitioners i.e. Travel Agency cannot be brought under the purview of Payment of Wages Act or the Payment of Wages (Air Transport Services) Rules, 1968 and so Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Patna cannot have any jurisdiction to inspect the premises of the petitioners. Such being the position, the continuance of the present prosecution of the petitioners, in my considered opinion, is an abuse of the process of the Court.

This application is accordingly allowed and the order of cognizance as against the petitioners is hereby quashed.