The High Court quashed a private complaint under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as it was filed beyond the six-month limitation period prescribed under Section 22B(2)(b).
Quashing of the private complaint (S.T.No.537/2019) as it was barred by limitation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.7052 OF 2019(B)
S.T.No.537/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NADAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
CHANDRAN.P, PROPRIETOR, PUSHPA GAS AGENCY, IYYAMAKODE, NADAPURAM, RESIDING AT 'ANASWARA', IYYAMAKODE.P.O., NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673509.
BY ADVS.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.JAI MOHAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, VATAKARA, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, VATAKARA, MINI CIVIL STATION, KERALA, PIN-673104.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAMESH CHAND
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.11.2020. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.7052 of 2019
2
ORDER
A private complaint was submitted before the
concerned Magistrate alleging the offence under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, against which the accused came up. It is submitted that the complaint was submitted not in accordance with the mandate under
Section 22B(2)(b) wherein a maximum period of six months incorporated as the time available for commencing the prosecution under Section 22A by way of a complaint. But Annexure A complaint was submitted after the lapse of more than six months. The inspection was conducted on 11.10.2018 for which there is no
dispute at all. The copy of complaint annexed would
clearly show that it was received on file on 13.06.2019 and there is an endorsement in the complaint itself with respect to the date of its receipt. Hence the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and no purpose will be served, if it is proceeded further.
Crl.M.C.No.7052 of 2019
3
Hence for securing the ends of justice, it is fit and
proper to quash the same as unwarranted.
Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
DMR/-
Crl.M.C.No.7052 of 2019
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEING ST.537/19 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NADAPURAM.
ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INSPECTION NOTE DATED 11.10.2018 BEARING LBR No.500179 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.10.2018 BEARING NO.PGA/ALO/1 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE D CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 28.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.12.2018 BEARING NO.PGA/ALO/3 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE: NIL
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a private complaint alleging an offence under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, filed after the six-month limitation period mandated under Section 22B(2)(b) can be proceeded with.
Whether the delay in filing the complaint renders it hopelessly barred by limitation.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
CHANDRAN.P
STATE OF KERALA
ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, VATAKARA
P.SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
