Allowed

V.P.Muhammed Haneefa v. Assistant Labour Officer

Kerala HC8 Nov 2019Crl.MC/6679/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal miscellaneous petition was filed seeking quashing of proceedings under the Minimum Wages Act. The petitioner alleged the complaint was filed beyond the six-month limitation period stipulated by the Act. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings on the ground that the complaint was filed after the expiry of the limitation period. These proceedings were init

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing of proceedings under the Minimum Wages Act was allowed, and all proceedings against the petitioner in S.T.No.219/2019 were quashed.

V.P.Muhammed Haneefa Vs Assistant Labour Officer — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.6679 OF 2019(D)

¶6

AGAINST THE COGNIZANCE OF THE COMPLAINT IN ST 219/2019 DATED 3101-2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED IN THE CASE:

¶8

V.P.MUHAMMED HANEEFA

¶9

AGED 52 YEARS

¶10

(MANAGING PARTNER),S/O. ALI HAJI, AMS DATES AND NUTS, BEHIND SHENOYS THEATRE, YMCA JUNCTION, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT VADAKKUMPALA HOUSE, PATTAMBI, THRITHALA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT,PN679 534

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.N.K.KARNIS SRI.PRAKASH P.GEORGE

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶13

1 ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER ERNAKULAM IST CIRCLE,CIVIL STATION,KAKKANAD,COCHIN682 030

¶14

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,COCHIN-682 031

¶15

SRI C S HRITHWIK-SR PP

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.11.2019, THE COURT ON 08.11.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.M.C.No.6679/2019

¶18

¶19

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J ************************ Crl.M.C.No.6679 of 2019

¶20

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2019

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing

¶23

the proceedings against the petitioner in the case S.T.No.219/2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam.

¶24

The petitioner is the sole accused in the aforesaid case. The allegation against him is that he committed an offence punishable under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

¶25

Cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of Annexure-A2 complaint filed against

¶26

the petitioner by the Assistant Labour Officer in the court on 31.01.2019.

¶27

¶28

Crl.M.C.No.6679/2019

¶29

The allegation in the complaint is that when the complainant conducted inspection of the shop of the petitioner on 20.07.2018, it was found that he had not maintained the registers required to be maintained under the statute.

¶30

The prayer for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner is made on the ground that the complaint was filed beyond the time stipulated in the Act.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶32

The inspection of the shop of the petitioner was conducted by the Assistant Labour Officer on 20.07.2018. The complaint for an offence punishable under Section 22A of the Act

¶33

was filed by him in the court only on 31.01.2019. The date of the complaint is mistakenly shown as 17.01.2018 in it. Therefore, this Court had called for a report from the learned Magistrate to inform, the date on which the complaint was filed in the court. Learned Magistrate has reported that the complaint was filed in the court on 31.01.2019. This is also evident from the seal of the court on Annexure-A2 complaint.

¶34

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.6679/2019

¶36

Section 22B(2)(a) of the Act provides that, no court

¶37

shall take cognizance of an offence under Section 22A, unless complaint thereof is made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed.

¶38

In the instant case, evidently, the complaint was filed in the court only on 31.01.2019, after the expiry of the period of six months from the date of inspection of the shop of the petitioner by the complainant, that is, 20.07.2018. Therefore, cognizance of the offence taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of Annexure-A2 complaint is barred by limitation and it is bad in law. Cognizance of the offence taken on the basis of Annexure-A2 complaint is liable to be quashed on this ground.

¶39

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The entire proceedings against the petitioner in the case S.T.No.219/2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam, initiated on the basis of Annexure-A2 complaint, are hereby quashed.

¶40

(sd/-)

¶41

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE

jsr/07/11/2019

Crl.M.C.No.6679/2019

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶47

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INSPECTION ORDER DATED 22.07.2018.

¶48

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ERNAKULAM DATED 31.01.2019.

¶49

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶50

TRUE COPY

V.P.Muhammed Haneefa v. Assistant Labour Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.P.Muhammed Haneefa v. Assistant Labour Officer

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

Kalidasan, Vs State of Kerala

Antoney Victor Vs State of Kerala

Soorya Hari.R.S Vs the State of Kerala

Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Sandeep Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Jaffar K.A. @ Jappu Vs State of Kerala