9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the petitioner known as M/s U.S. Dugal and Company and found that certain registers were not maintained in accordance with the requirements of the Minimum Wages Act and the Rules framed thereunder. He had given a list of registers, viz ., casual labour register, destruction and loss register, excess payment register, muster roll register, etc. Thereafter, he sent reminders for production of those registers to the project manager, several times and every time he received letters for extension of time and ultimately, when those registers were not produced, he filed this case for alleged violation of sections 18 and 19(4) of the Act and thereafter a complaint was filed and cognizance of the offence was taken and the petitioners were summone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rector and directors. Admittedly, the complainant had entered into correspondence with the supervisor and the project manager of the company for production of the relevant registers but that was not done nor were his directions, complied with. It also appears that he also informed the directors "bout violation of the relevant provisions out in spite of that, nothing was done by any of the petitioners. The allegation, therefore, was that all the petitioners, in one way or the other, were responsible and the violation so committed was brought to their notice, but still no action was taken. In the Full Bench ruling it has been specifically held that if the offence is committed by the company or the firm, its director, manager or partner become ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners being directors are not liable for prosecution on the basis of the ruling in Municipal Corporation of Delhi y. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, AIR 1983 SC 67 and State of Madras v. C. V. 'Parekh, AIR 1971 SC 447. These rulings were also considered in the Full Bench cases (1986 P.L.J.R. pages 246 and 537)(supra), and, thereafter it was held as indicated above. In this connection, it should be noted that section 22(c) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is in pari materia to section 10 of the Essential Commodities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
