State of J&K @APPELLANT@Hash M/s International Engineers

The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the order dated 01.07.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Leh (Ladakh), by virtue of which court below has dismissed the complaint filed by petitioner u/s 22-A of Minimum Wages Act for

violation of rules 22, 26(5), 26(1), 25(2), 21(4) and 26(2) of the Minimum Wages (central) Rules, with a further prayer to direct the learned CJM to

take cognizance of the complaint and to proceed with the trial.

It has been stated that the order passed by court below is not in accordance with law; the court below has refused to take cognizance of the

complaint on technical ground which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Section 22-B of the Minimum Wages Act lay down that no court shall take

cognizance of any offence under this Act unless a complaint thereof has been made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to

have been committed. However, the Magistrate has failed to appreciate that the failure on the part of the respondent to pay minimum wages to his

employees in an act or omission which continues till the respondent starts paying minimum wages to his employees and adheres to the other provisions

of the minimum wages act, the offence shall continue to be committed and the period of limitation shall be computed with reference to every point of

time.

I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties.

From the perusal of record, it is evident that the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Jallandhar at Jammu, who has been appointed as Inspector

under sub-Section-1 of the Section 19 of the Act on 01.07.2010 filed a complaint against the accused/respondent u/s 22-A of Minimum Wages Act for

violation of rules 22, 26(5), 26(1), 25(2), 21(4) and 26(2) of the Minimum Wages (central) Rules. It has been averred in the complaint that inspection

of the work/establishment of the above mentioned accused was conducted on 19.09.2009 under M.W.Act and it was found that the accused did not

display notices showing minimum rates of wages fixed, abstract from the Acts and the Rules and address of inspector in English and Hindi, which was

in clear contravention of rule 22 of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules 1948. It was further stated in the complaint that the register of wages under

rule 26(1), register of overtime under rule 25(2), register of fine and deduction for damages for loss under rule 21(4) and accused also did not issue

wage slip to the workers as required under Section 26(2) of the Minimum Wages Act. On the same day inspection report cum show cause notice was

served on the accused by registered A/D post. As per complainant, respondent/ accused has committed violation of rules 22, 26(5), 26(1), 25(2), 21(4)

and 26(2) of the Minimum Wages (central) Rules.

This complaint was accompanied with a petition for condonation of delay wherein it has averred that the last date of filing this case was 18.03.2010

but due to administrative reasons the post of (LEO) Jammu remained vacant, therefore, the complaint being filed late. It has also been averred that

due to closer of Leh road it was not possible to come to Leh earlier. Â

The Court below after hearing the counsel for parties dismissed the complaint as time barred, vides impugned order. The concluding para of order

reads as under:-

“For conveniences Section 22B cl2 sub clause(b) is reproduce herein below:-

S.22 B cl 2(b) cognizance of offence:

No court shall take cognizance of an offence under Section 22-A, unless complaint thereof is made within six months of the date on which the offence

is alleged to have been committed.

Under the special enactment no discretion has been given to the court/magistrate to extend the said period of limitation. Further the section 538 CrPC

(J&K) applies with regard to Section 538-B CrPC (J&K) and not with regard to special enactments. The case cited by the complainant i.e.,

People’s Union for Democratic Rights (supra) directs the courts to strictly implement the labour laws and violation of labour laws should be

strictly dealt with, but no discretion has been given to the courts to extend the period of limitation under Minimum Wages Act.

Hence, keeping in view the above discussion, it is clear that the complaint has been filed after the expiry of statutory period of six months. Neither

statue provides for extension of period of limitation nor any sufficient grounds exist for condonation of delay. Hence, the application/petition for

condonation of delay is rejected as there is delay of more than three months in filing this complaint which cannot be condoned. Thus, in view of bar u/s

22(B) 2(b) of the Minimum Wages Act no cognizance of offence u/s 22(A), M.W.Act can be taken against accused person. Accordingly, the

complaint is dismissed and file is consigned to records.â€​

Bare perusal of this order, it is evident that the CJM, Leh (Ladakh) has dismissed the complaint as time barred.

In terms of Section 22B(2)(b) of the MinimumWages Act, there is statutory provision for filing complaint within six months and no court is entitled

to take cognizance if the prosecution report is filed after the statutory period of six months. So there is no dispute that as per the provision contained in

Section 22B(2)(b) of the MinimumWages Act, no court is entitled to take cognizance under Section 22-A of the MinimumWages Act if the

prosecution report is filed beyond the period of six months from the date of occurrence. In the present case, the prosecution report was filed beyond

the statutory period as prescribed under Section 22B (2)(b) of the MinimumWages Act . The Court has got no option but to dismiss the complaint as

time barred.

In the result, the instant petition is dismissed as it is without any merit.