Labour Enforcement Officer vs Abdul Khader

Balakrishnan, J.—This appeal arises from the judgment in S.T.C. No. 147 of 1982, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod.

The accused was a railway contractor and he entered into a contract with the railway in respect of the work of earth cutting for laying additional railway lines at Kasaragod Railway Station which according to the prosecution was a scheduled employer within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The prosecution allegation is that the accused did not display notice showing the minimum rates of wages and failed to maintain Muster roll of the workers at the spot and to maintain register of wages and also failed to issue wages slips to workers and thereby committed offence under Rules 26(1), (2), (5) and 25(2) of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950.

On the side of the prosecution three witnesses were examined and Exts. P 1 to 10 were marked. The accused contended that he had maintained necessary registers and muster rolls in his office at Mangalore. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the Magistrate was competent to take cognizance u/s 22-B of the Minimum Wages Act when the sanction was granted more than one month prior to the filing of the complaint. Section 22-B of Minimum Wages Act reads as follows.

"22-B. Cognizance of offences......(1)

(a) .........

(b) .........

(2) No court shall take cognizance of an offence-

(a) under Clause (a) or Clause (b) unless complaint thereof is made within one month of the grant of sanction under this section.

The offence sought to be proved against the accused was the contravention of the rule made u/s 30 of the Minimum Wages Act. They are made penal u/s 22-B of the Minimum Wages Act. It is clear from Section 22-B(2) that the complaint should be filed within a period of one month from the grant of sanction. If the complaint was filed beyond a period of one month after the sanction for prosecution the court is incompetent to take cognizance of the offence.

In the instant case Ext.P9 is the sanction order issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Madras. Ext. P9 is dated 5.3.1982. The complaint in this case has been filed on 10.6.1982. As the complaint was filed beyond a period of one month from the date of Ext.P9 sanction the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the offence. Therefore, the whole trial was vitiated and I see no reason to interfere with the acquittal of the accused. The criminal appeal is only to be dismissed. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.