Allowed

Mr Punith R Jain v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Apr 2024CRL.P/1940/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Company officials prosecuted for wage payment offences sought quashing since the company was not made an accused. Holding that vicarious liability cannot attach without prosecuting the employer company as a necessary party, the High Court quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings in C.C.No.8824/2023 before MMTC-I Bengaluru under the Payment of Wages Act quashed against the petitioners.

Mr Punith R Jain Vs State of Karnataka — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:15153 CRL.P No. 1940 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1940 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. PUNITH R. JAIN S/O LATE RAMESHLAL K. JAIN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NO.402A, THE ESTATE DICKENSON ROAD NEXT TO MANIPAL CENTRE BANGALORE, KARNATAKA - 560 042 GENERAL MANAGER SALES OFFICE AT M/S SAINT GOBAIN INDIA PVT. LTD. ALSO AT R/A PLOT NO.60 BROOKE BOND COLONY KAKAGUDA, TIRUMALAGIRI SECUNDERABAD, HYDERABAD ANDHRA PRADESH - 500 015.

¶10

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

MR. SUBRAMUNIAN VENKATARAMAN @VENKATARAMAN SUBRAMANIAN S/O VAIDYANATHAN VENKATARAMAN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT 401, OBEROI SPLENDOR OPPOSITE MAJAS BUS DEPOT JVLR, JOGESHWARI EAST MUMBAI - 40060, MANAGING DIRECTOR AT M/ SAINT GOBAIN INDIA PVT. LTD.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI B.K. PRASHANTH, ADV.)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA AT THE INSTANCE OF SENIOR LABOUR INSPECTOR 19TH CIRCLE, KARMIKA BHAVANA

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:15153 CRL.P No. 1940 of 2024

¶18

BANNERUGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 029 REPRESENTED BY SPP.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI R. RANGASWAMY, HCGP)

¶21

THIS CRL.P. FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.8824/2023 FILED UNDER SEC.200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE R/W SEC.21(3) AND 3A OF THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT 1936 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED MMTC-I MAYO HALL BENGALURU PURSUANT THERETO WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.1

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Accused nos.1 & 2 are before this Court under Section

¶25

482 of Cr.PC with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.8824/2023 pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-1, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 21(3) & 3(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short, 'the Act').

¶26

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶27

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the

¶28

petitioners who are the General Manager and Managing Director of the company are arrayed as accused in the present proceedings holding them vicariously liable for the act

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:15153 CRL.P No. 1940 of 2024

¶31

committed by the company. He submits that in the absence of the company being made as a party to the proceedings, the Trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the alleged offences against the petitioners herein.

¶32

Learned HCGP has opposed the petition.

¶33

The material on record would go to show that a private complaint was filed under Section 200 of Cr.PC by the Senior Labour Inspector alleging that the petitioners herein who are the General Manager and Managing Director of the company known as M/s. Saint Gobain India Pvt. Ltd., are liable to be punished for the offence under Section 20(2) of the Act.

¶34

Section 3 of the Act provides for responsibility for payment of wages. Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Act, it is the responsibility of the employer to make payment of all wages required to be made under the Act in case the person designated fails to make such payment. Even if it is presumed that the petitioners are the persons designated by the company to make payment, notwithstanding the same, the responsibility is on the company to make payment, and therefore, the company is a necessary

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:15153 CRL.P No. 1940 of 2024

¶37

party to the impugned proceedings and in the absence of the company being made as a party, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offences.

¶38

Since the petitioners herein are being held vicariously liable for the acts committed by the company, unless the company is arrayed as accused to the proceedings, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offences. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has issued summons to the petitioners without taking cognizance of the alleged offences against the petitioners. Under the circumstances, the impugned criminal proceedings cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order:

¶39

Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.8824/2023 pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-1, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 20(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, is hereby quashed.

¶40

SD/JUDGE

¶41

Mr Punith R Jain v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Punith R Jain v. State of Karnataka

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 Tamaghno Sarkar Vs State by Deputy Superindent of Excise

Smt. Chaitra K Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh K Vs v Padma

K R Girija Vs M C Nandakumar

Sri. Srinivas D @ Srinivas Danda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Chethan Gowda H J Vs State by Kengeri P S