9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of Minimum Wages Act and Rules | Liability of directors in company offenses | Prosecution under section 22(c) of Minimum Wages Act | Application of Full Bench rulings | Cognizance under section 22A vs. section 22C | Fresh summons for directors after delay Violation of Minimum Wages Act and Rules: The case involved the alleged violation of the Minimum Wages Act and Rules by a company, M/s U.S. Dugal and Company, as identified during an inspection by the Labor Inspector. The company failed to maintain required registers, leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, who were directors of the company. The Labor Inspector repeatedly requested the production of the necessary registers, but the company failed to comply, resulting in the filing of the case for violation of sections 18 and 19(4) of the Act. Liability of directors in company offenses: The main contention raised by the petitioners was that they, as directors, should not be prosecuted as they were not directly responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company. However, the respondent argued, citing a Full Bench ruling, that in cases where a company commits an offense, all individuals associated with the company, including directors, are vicariously liable for the offense unless proven otherwise. The ruling emphasized that specific naming of directors in the complaint is not necessary for their prosecution in such cases. Prosecution under section 22(c) of Minimum Wages Act: The court noted that section 22(c) of the Minimum Wages Act is similar to section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, and thus the Full Bench rulings regarding the liability of directors in company offenses are applicable in the present case. The petitioners, being directors, can be prosecuted along with the company for violations under the Minimum Wages Act, without the need to establish their individual roles or responsibilities in the complaint. Application of Full Bench rulings: The judgment referred to various Full Bench rulings, including cases under different Acts, to establish the principle of vicarious liability for directors in company offenses. The rulings emphasized that directors, managers, or partners can be held liable for offenses committed by the company, even without specific allegations of their involvement, unless they prove their lack of knowledge or due diligence to prevent the offense. Cognizance under section 22A vs. section 22C: The petitioners argued that cognizance had been taken under section 22A of the Act, making section 22C inapplicable. However, the court clarified that the focus should be on the offense and its elements during trial or framing of charges, rather than the specific section under which cognizance was taken. The issue regarding the application of sections 22A and 22C was left for consideration at the trial stage. Fresh summons for directors after delay: Lastly, the petitioners requested fresh summons to be issued to the directors, considering the delay of four years since the order of cognizance. The court found this request reasonable and directed the lower court to consider issuing fresh summons to the directors, who lived far away and might not have been promptly informed about the case. In conclusion, the court dismissed the application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, finding no merit in the petitioners' arguments regarding the quashing of the criminal proceedings. The judgment reaffirmed the vicarious liability of directors in company offenses under the Minimum Wages Act, based on the principles established in relevant Full Bench rulings.
|
