Allowed

Sri T Raghavendra Setty v. State of Karnataka at the Instance of

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2023CRL.P/1974/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition seeking quashing of contempt proceedings initiated due to alleged delayed wage payment. Court held proceedings vitiated for lack of required sanction under Section 21 of Payment of Wages Act before filing application under Section 15(2).

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings pending in Crl.Misc.No.88/2013 are quashed.

Sri T Raghavendra Setty Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:19916 CRL.P No. 1974 of 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1974 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI T RAGHAVENDRA SETTY S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA SETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPIER M/S GAURI INDUSTRIES(KARNATAKA) PVT LTD, POST BOX NO.3 B H ROAD, GAURIBIDANUR-561208 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT

¶9

SRI K S SATYANARAYANA

¶10

S/O LATE VENKATACHALAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶11

MANAGER

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

M/S GAURI INDUSTRIES(KARNATAKA) PVT LTD, POST BOX NO.3 B H ROAD, GAURIBIDANUR-561208 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT

¶14

(BY SRI. K V SATISH, ADVOCATE)

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA AT THE INSTANCE OF SRI M A SOMASHEKAR ASST DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES (AN INSPECTOR APPOINTED UNDER SECTION 8(1) OF THE FACTORIES ACT, 1948 BANGALORE DIVN-13

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:19916 CRL.P No. 1974 of 2018

¶20

KARMIKA BHAVAN 2^ND FLOOR, BANGALORE DAIRY CIRCLE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560029

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI.VINAYAKA.V.S, HCGP)

¶23

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CRL.MISC.NO.88/2013 (ANNEXURE-A) ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn) AND JMFC, GAURIBIDANUR.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The respondent-authority has presented the application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, (for short "the Act"), alleging that the petitioners have contravened the provisions of Section 5(1)(A) of the Act, 1936. In the application, it is alleged that the petitioners herein are guilty of delayed payment of wages. The captioned petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the application-complaint submitted by respondent-authority is treated as a charge sheet and the learned Magistrate has registered a complaint in C.C.No.475/2009.

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:19916 CRL.P No. 1974 of 2018

¶28

The petitioners' claim that the learned

¶29

Magistrate erred in taking cognizance without examining the fact that the application under Section 15(2) of the Act is submitted without securing sanction from the competent authority and therefore, the entire proceedings stand vitiated for want of sanction. He would also point out that payment is made to the employees and therefore, submits the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶30

Per contra, the learned HCGP would seek short accommodation to ascertain whether the sanction was obtained before presenting an application under Section 15(2) of Act, 1936.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP.

¶32

Section 21 of the Act lays down the procedure to hold trial for offences covered under the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 21 clearly indicates that complaint can be submitted to the learned Magistrate only after securing sanction from the competent authority.

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:19916 CRL.P No. 1974 of 2018

¶34

Further, sub-section (2) of Section 21 clearly indicates that before sanctioning the making of a complaint against any person for an offence under sub-section (1) of section 20, the authority empowered under section 15 or the Appellate court, as the case may be, has to afford to such person an opportunity of showing cause against the granting of such sanction.

¶35

If the provisions of Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 21 are taken congnizance of, then, I find some force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. No person can be subjected to trial for offences covered under the provisions of the Act, unless sanction is obtained. Even while according sanction, the authority is required to issue show-cause notice before granting sanction. Since sanction before presenting an application under Section 15(2) of the Act is a requisite condition, I am of the view that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate and thereby, the issue of process to the petitioners is bad in law. The learned Magistrate erred

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:19916 CRL.P No. 1974 of 2018

¶37

in treating the application as a charge sheet and since for want of sanction, it goes to the root of the case, the entire proceedings stand vitiated on this sole ground. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the proceedings pending in Cr.Misc.No.88/2013 are liable to be quashed for want of sanction by the competent authority as indicated in Section 21 of the Act. As the application is submitted without affording an opportunity to the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be subjected to trial for the offences indicates in the application filed under Section 15(2) and if permitted, the same amounts to abuse of process. Hence, I am of the view that the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶38

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(i) The criminal petition is allowed.

¶41

(ii) The proceedings pending in

¶42

Crl.Misc.No.88/2013 pending on the file of the Principal

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:19916 CRL.P No. 1974 of 2018

¶44

¶45

Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Gauribidanur, are hereby quashed.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Sri T Raghavendra Setty v. State of Karnataka at the Instance of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T Raghavendra Setty v. State of Karnataka at the Instance of

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. Yaladalu Manoj Bopaiah Vs State of Karnataka by Madikeri Town Police Station

Sri S B Vijayananda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Laxmibai Chavan Vs Sri Gautam Chavan

Sri. Kiran Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Naveen Kumar Vs Sri. Mohammed Rafi

Sri Munikrishnappa M K Vs State of Karnataka