Allowed

Wipro Limited v. State Represented by

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2021CRL.P/4538/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a complaint and orders passed in a case arising under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. The court held that the complaint was unsustainable as it ignored the petitioners' reply to the show cause notice.

What did the court decide?

The complaint dated 16-01-2014, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.296/2014, and the order dated 25-03-2014 were quashed. The respondent was directed to consider the petitioners' reply and pass appropri

Wipro Limited Vs State Represented by — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4538 OF 2017

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

WIPRO LIMITED AN EXISTING COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT DODDAKANNELLI, SARJAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 035 REPRESENTED BY MR.PRITAM DIWAKAR SHETTY .

¶9

MR.T.K.KURIEN S/O TEKKETHALAKAL KURIAN KURIAN AGED 58 YEARS RESIIDNG AT 7^TH FLOOR, ETA BEAU MONDE 6 BENSON CROSS ROAD, BENSON TOWN BENGALURU - 560 046.

¶10

... PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR.COUNSEL FOR

¶12

SRI P.N.MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶13

AND

¶14

STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE LABLOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (CENTRAL) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

¶15

¶16

"SHRAM SADAN", 3^RD MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, TUMAKURU ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR

¶17

BENGALURU - 560 022.

¶18

... RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, ASG (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO

¶21

i)QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2014 PASSED IN C.C.NO.296/2014 PASSED BY THE M.M.T.C.-III, BANGALORE.

¶22

ii)QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2017 PASSED IN C.C.NO.296/2014 PASSED BY THE M.M.T.C.-III, BANGALORE INSOFAR AS REJECTING THE PRAYER OF THE PETITIONERS TO DELETE PETITIONER NO.2 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 305 AS PRAYED FOR AND

¶23

iii)QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 16.01.2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.296/2014 BEFORE THE COURT OF THE M.M.T.C.-III, BANGALORE AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.296/2014 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE M.M.T.C.-III, BANGALORE.

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the order dated 25-03-2014 passed in C.C.No.296 of 2014 by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-III, Bangalore and have further sought quashing of entire proceedings pending before the

¶27

¶28

said Court initiated under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (‘the Act’ for short).

¶29

Heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel for Sri P.N.Manmohan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned Additional Solicitor General for respondent.

¶30

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

¶31

The petitioners own a premises which is development center of Unique Identification Authority of India (‘UIAI’ for short) at Kodigehalli, Bangalore. On 24-10-2013 the respondent/Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) visited/ inspected the premises of the petitioners for the purpose of inspection, on reference, under the provisions of the Act and the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 (‘the Rules’ for short). The 1^st petitioner/Company is engaged by UIAI as its contractor and was performing its contract at the time when the respondent inspected the premises. On

¶32

¶33

inspection, it is the allegation that the respondent noticed contravention of the Rules insofar as it pertains to Rules 81(1)(i), 71, 79, 75, 76(i), 78(a)(i), 78(a)(ii), 78(a)(iii) and 78(1)(b) of the Rules.

¶34

The respondent, on the aforesaid allegation, issued a show cause notice to the 1^st petitioner on 24-10-2013 calling upon it to rectify the irregularities immediately and report compliance within 15 days, failing which, action would be taken in accordance with law against the 1^st petitioner/company. To the said show cause notice, the petitioners duly filed their response on 28-11-2013 before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) against an acknowledgment, both of them are appended to the petition.

¶35

It is the case of the petitioners that the Company responded in justification or correction of each one of the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the show cause notice. The 1^st petitioner/Company was directed to seek permission of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)

¶36

¶37

to receive documents for verification. On 29-11-2013 a

¶38

representation was given to verify the documents submitted by the Company. The case of the petitioners is that they had submitted their reply to the show cause notice and also submitted documents for verification. Both of them were acknowledged by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central).

¶39

Notwithstanding the submission of documents, no order was passed or a personal hearing to the petitioners was accorded, but the respondent went on to register a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 24 of the Act on 16-01-2014 alleging aforesaid offences against the petitioners. The primary ground on which the private complaint is registered is that the petitioners had not submitted their reply to the show cause notice. It is on this premises inter alia , the criminal case is registered and proceeded further.

¶40

The learned Magistrate by an order dated 25-03-2014

¶41

has taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences punishable under

¶42

¶43

the Act. Therefore, the very initiation of the proceedings against the petitioners was on a wrong premise. The premises inter alia was that the petitioners have not submitted their reply. A Show cause notice was issued on 24-10-2013 to which the petitioners had in fact submitted their reply on 28-11-2013 and also submitted documents for verification or justification of their reply which was on 29-11-2013. Both these glaring circumstances have been conveniently ignored and criminal case is registered without application of mind.

¶44

The petitioners filed application under Section 305 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing entire proceedings and the complaint on the aforesaid premises. This is also is rejected by the criminal Court directing continuance of proceedings against the petitioners. It is these orders that are called in question in this petition.

¶45

In the light of the aforesaid narration of facts, there cannot be a better example of the respondent wanting to set the criminal law in motion on the ground that there is no reply given

¶46

¶47

by the 1^st petitioner/company to the show cause notice that is issued. The reason behind registration of the complaint is as follows:

¶48

“5. FACTS OF THE CASE:

¶49

That the accused is a contractor engaged Data Centre Development for design, implementation and O&M of captive data centre, physical infrastructure UIAI, Kodigehalli, Bangalore. Thus, the accused is a ‘CONTRACTOR’ as defined in Section 2(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970.

¶50

That the accused having thus contravened the provisions of the above Act and Rules at the aforesaid work-spot within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and has rendered themselves liable for prosecution under Section 24 of the said Act.

¶51

That, the complainant inspected the above work of the accused on 24-10-2013 at 1515 under the said Act and Rules. During the course of inspection, he observed the above contraventions amongst others: That the said offences under the above Act and Rules as observed were incorporated in the Inspection Report-cum-show cause notice No.255/2013-C5 [Read with 34 (140)/13-C5] dated 24-10-2013 and was served on the accused through Registered Post Ack. Due. The accused was requested to rectify the said irregularities and also to show cause as to why legal action should not be taken against him for the existence of the irregularities. That the accused failed to send any reply. Hence, this complaint.”

¶52

The reason is clearly indicative of the fact that the accused were requested to rectify the irregularities in terms of the show cause

¶53

¶54

notice dated 24-10-2013 and the accused have failed to send any reply. The complaint is registered on 16-01-2014, by then the petitioners had submitted their reply on 28-11-2013 and had also submitted a representation requesting permission to accept and verify the documents submitted by the 1^st petitioner/company. Both these documents did bear the acknowledgment of the Competent Authority which was dated 5-12-2013. All these events have happened prior to registration of the complaint on 16-01-2014. Therefore, it was the duty of the respondent to verify the records before wanting to set the criminal law in motion by registration of complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.

¶55

As quoted hereinabove, the main ground for registration of the complaint is no reply is submitted by the petitioners, which on the face of it is erroneous and further proceedings taken pursuant to the said act of registration of the complaint would also be rendered unsustainable in the light of the very complaint being vitiated by blatant non-application of

¶56

¶57

mind. The respondent had to pass an order on the reply given to the show cause notice either accepting or rejecting it and further course of action in terms of the Act should have been taken, which is having not done and the criminal case being straight

¶58

away registered, renders the entire action unsustainable.

¶59

For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

¶60

O R D E R

¶61

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶62

(ii) The complaint dated 16-01-2014 filed by the respondent and registered as C.C.No.296 of 2014 before the Court of MMTC-III, Bangalore along with entire proceedings and the order dated 25.03.2014 passed by the Court of MMTC-III, Bangalore stand quashed.

¶63

(iii) The respondent shall consider the reply submitted by the 1^st petitioner/Company to the show cause notice and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording all opportunities to the petitioners.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

bkp CT:MJ

Wipro Limited v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wipro Limited v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Harish K L Vs the District Electoral Officer

Shivananda. H. S. Vs Vidyashree H. E.

Sri S v Ramesh Vs Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Zakir Hussain @ Wajid Ahmed Vs Bibi Ayesha

Sri. Dr. Badekil Venkataramana Bhat Vs Sri N.S. Vadiraj

Venkata Reddy Vs State of Karnataka