Allowed

M.M. Muraleedharan v. the Assistant Labour Officer GR.11

Kerala HC9 Mar 2021Crl.MC/4935/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the complaint and proceedings under Section 21(2) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, allowing the criminal miscellaneous petition. The court held that the petitioner's ESI coverage excludes applicability of the Maternity Benefit Act, and admitted the evidence at the stage of criminal miscellaneous petition. It rejected blame on respondents for the delay in submitting the do

What did the court decide?

Complaint alleging offence under Section 21(2) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and the cognizance taken thereof have been quashed.

M.M. Muraleedharan Vs the Assistant Labour Officer… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.4935 OF 2016(F)

¶6

IN ST 1251/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

M.M. MURALEEDHARAN, PRESIDENT, KERALEEYA AYURVEDA SAMAJAM HOSPITAL, MANJALAKULAM ROAD, PALAKKAD

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.ANAND (SR.) SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN (PARACKAL) SMT.LATHA ANAND SRI.M.N.RADHAKRISHNA MENON

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶11

1 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER GR.II, 2ND CIRCLE, PALAKKAD – 679 001.

¶12

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682031.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. E.C.BINEESH

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.M.C.No.4935 of 2016

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

It is submitted that the petitioner is having coverage of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and the provisions of the said Act is made applicable to the institution. As such, the same would stand excluded from the operation of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 by virtue of Section 2(2) of the Act. It is fairly conceded by the learned Prosecutor that the document showing ESI coverage was not brought to the notice of the complainant or even at the time when the Crl.M.C. was filed. It was produced subsequently. Hence no blame can be placed on the respondents. The complaint alleging offence under Section 21(2) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and the cognizance taken thereof are hereby quashed.

¶19

Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

DMR/-

Crl.M.C.No.4935 of 2016

¶25

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶28

ANNEXURE	I	TRUE COPY OF ST NO. 1251/16 BEFORE THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE III PALAKKAD)
ANNEXURE	2	TRUE COPY OF RETURN OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR APRIL 2015 TO SEPTEMBER 2015.
ANNEXURE	3	TRUE COPY OF RETURN OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR APRIL 2016 TO SEPTEMBER 2016.
ANNEXURE	4	TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF MONTHLY CONTRIBUTION FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 2015 DATED 26.05.2015.
ANNEXURE	5	TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF MONTHLY CONTRIBUTION FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2016 DATED 20.06.2016.
ANNEXURE	6	TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF MONTHLY CONTRIBUTION FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2021 DATED 15.02.2021.
RESPONDEN	TS' ANNEXURE	: NIL

¶29

// TRUE COPY //

¶30

P.A. TO JUDGE

M.M. Muraleedharan v. the Assistant Labour Officer GR.11

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.M. Muraleedharan v. the Assistant Labour Officer GR.11

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

Chandrasekharan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Krishnakumar Vs the State of Kerala

John Britas Vs Abdul Salam

Minimol Vs the State of Kerala

B.Suresh Vs State of Kerala

M.Mahesh Vs State of Kerala