Sridhar Nath Sinha @ S.N. Sinha and Another vs State of Bihar and Another

Prashant Kumar, J.—This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.12.1999 passed in C/2 Case No. 85/99 by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila, whereby he took cognizance u/s 22A of the Minimum Wages Act. It is submitted by Sri A.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioners that in the complaint petition it is alleged that petitioner''s company violated provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. It is submitted that learned court below without applying its mind on the complaint petition took cognizance u/s 22A of the Minimum Wages Act There is no allegation in the complaint petition that any of the employee of the petitioner-company were paid wages in violation of Minimum Wages Act. Thus, no of fence u/s 22A of Minimum Wages Act is made out. Accordingly, it is submitted that impugned order cannot be sustained.

Mr. S.K. Dubey, learned Addl. P.P. after going through complaint petition has not disputed aforesaid submissions.

Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case.

From perusal of complaint petition, I find that the Labour Enforcement Officer(C) filed aforesaid complaint petition alleging therein that petitioner''s company had failed to display the date of payment of unpaid wages in English and Hindi, which is violative of Rule 81 (1)(i) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. But from perusal of impugned order, I find that learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate instead of taking cognizance under Labour Contract (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 took cognizance under Minimum Wages Act which clearly shows that he passed the impugned order without application of mind, which is in my view, is an abuse of the process of Court. Accordingly, the said order cannot be sustained. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed.