Mr Venkataraman Subramanian Vs State of Karnataka

MR VENKATARAMAN SUBRAMANIAN S/O VAIDYANATHAN VENKATARAMAN AGED 61 YEARS R/AT F401, OBEROI SPLENDOR OPPOSITE MAJAS BUS DEPOT JVLR, JOGESHWARI EAST MUMBAI - 40060

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH B.K, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA AT THE INSTANCE OF LABOUR INSPECTOR KANKAPURA CIRCLE, KANKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 562117 REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP)

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1272/2019 FILED UNDER SEC.200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE R/W RULE 5 OF THE

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:20393 CRL.P No. 7042 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

PAYMENT WAGES RULES, 1963 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO, WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.1 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, KANKAPURA.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Petitioner who is the sole accused has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.1272/2019 for violation of Rule 5 of Payment of wages Rules, 1963.

¶26

For the sake of convenience, parties are

¶27

referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

¶28

Accused is seeking quashing of the criminal

¶29

proceedings on the ground that he is innocent and law abiding citizen and has not committed the alleged offence. In the instant case, petitioner is the Managing

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20393 CRL.P No. 7042 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Director of Company St.Gobain India Private Limited. The

¶33

alleged violation is by the company and as such it ought to have been arraigned as accused in order to maintain prosecution against accused. As the Managing Director, he discharge his duties from the Corporate office situated at Mumbai. He cannot be held responsible for day-to-day management. In the absence of specific allegations complaint is not maintainable and hence the petition.

¶34

In support of his arguments, learned counsel

¶35

for accused has relied upon the following decisions:

¶36

(i) Ravindranatha Bajpe Vs. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd, and Ors . ( Ravindranatha Bajpe )¹

¶37

(ii) Dayle De'souza Vs. Government of India through Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner ( Dayle De'souza )²

¶38

(iii) Krishna Bhat and Ors. Vs. The State and Ors.( Krishna Bhat )³

¶39

(iv) Punith R.Jain and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka ( Punith R. Jain )⁴

¶40

1 MANU/SC/0715/2021 : Crl.A.Nos.1047-1048/2021 Dt:27.09.2021

¶41

2 MANU/SC/1016/2021 : Crl.A.No.1319/2021 Dt:29.10.2021

¶42

3 MANU/KA/3145/2024 : Crl.P.No.2666/2021 Dt:23.09.2024

¶43

4 Crl.P.No.1940/2024 Dt:27.09.2021

¶44

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20393 CRL.P No. 7042 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Learned High Court Government Pleader fairly conceded that in the absence of company, the complaint against the accused is not maintainable. However, liberty may be reserved to the complainant to file a fresh complaint in accordance with law.

¶47

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶48

Respondent No.2/complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C against accused referring him as the owner of Saint Gobain India Private Limited. It is alleged that on 14.05.2019, when he visited

¶49

the factory of Saint Gobain India Private Limited at Harohalli Industrial Area, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagar, the following violations were found:

¶50

(i) Salary payment date is not displayed in the organization (Sec.25 Rule 9).

¶51

(ii) The Organization failed to display the summary of Laws and Regulations (Sec.25 Rule 21)

¶52

(iii) Annual Report not filed in prescribed Form 'U' as per Section 20.

¶53

5 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:20393 CRL.P No. 7042 of 2022

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

The trial Court has taken cognizance and issued summons to the accused.

¶57

In the present petition, the accused has challenged his prosecution mainly on the ground that in his capacity as the Managing Director of the company, he is not personally liable unless the company is made a party and the trial Court has erred in taking cognizance.

¶58

Section 3 of the Payment of Wages Act, deals with responsibility of payment of wages. It reads as follows:

¶59

"3. Responsibility for payment of wages - (1) Every employer shall be responsible for the payment of all wages required to be paid under this Act to persons employed by him and in case of persons employed -

¶60

(a) in factories, if a person has been named as the manager of the factory under clause (f) of sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948)

¶61

(b) in industrial or other establishments, if there is a person responsible to the employer for the supervision and control of the industrial or other establishments;

¶62

6 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:20393 CRL.P No. 7042 of 2022

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

(c) upon railways (other than in factories), if the employer is the railway administration and the railway administration has nominated a person in this behalf for the local area concerned;

¶66

(d) in the case of contractor, a person designated by such contractor who is directly under his charge; and

¶67

(e) in any other case, a person designated by the employer as a person responsible for complying with the provisions of the Act,

¶68

the person so named, the person responsible to the employer, the person so nominated or the person so designated, as the case may be, shall be responsible for such payment.

¶69

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subSection (1), it shall be the responsibility of the employer to make payment of all wages required to be made under this Act in case the contractor or the person designated by the employer fails to make such payment."

¶70

The plain reading of this Section makes it

¶71

evident that even though the person who is named as the

¶72

Manager of the factory under Section 7 of the Factories Act, a person responsible to the employer for supervision and control of the industrial or other establishments in Industrial or other establishment, there is a person

¶73

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20393 CRL.P No. 7042 of 2022

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

designated by contractor who is directly under his charge

¶76

in case of contractor and a person designated by the employer as a person responsible for complying with the provisions of the Act in other cases, ultimately it is the responsibility of the employer to make payment of all wages required under the Act. Therefore, in order to attract the vicarious liability a company is a necessary party. Unless and until company is made a party, the petitioner who is the Managing Director cannot be held vicariously liable. The case in Punith R Jain, also relating to M/s Saint Gobain India Pvt. Ltd. In that case also company was also not made a party and as such criminal proceedings came to be quashed. Even though the decision in Ravindranatha Bajpe deals with IPC offences, the ratio is applicable.

¶77

In the present case, the company is not made a party. Therefore, in the absence of the company, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. However, the

¶78

8 -

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:20393 CRL.P No. 7042 of 2022

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint after arraigning the company as party.

¶82

In the result petition succeeds and

¶83

accordingly, the following:

¶84

ORDER

¶85

(i) Petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.

¶86

(ii) The criminal proceedings against accused in C.C.No.1272/2019 on the file of Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura, is hereby quashed.

¶87

(iii) However, the complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint by also arraigning complainant as accused, in accordance with law and proceed with the matter.

¶88

9 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:20393 CRL.P No. 7042 of 2022

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

(iv) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through e-mail.

¶92

Sd/(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE

¶93

RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Mr Venkataraman Subramanian v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Venkataraman Subramanian v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Gopala Shetty Vs State by Range Forest Officer

Smt. Lakshmi B Vs Smt. Naveena Shetty

Smt Raghavi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Udaya Kumar @ Udaya Vs the State of Karnataka

Nanjegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Melvin Fransis Sequera Vs the State of Karnataka