3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, for statistical purposes, the complaint has been filed. The Managing Director who was staying in Mumbai has been arrayed as an accused for violation in respect of non-displaying of Board. It is his further contention that, as per Section 2(e) SubClause (iv) of the Minimum Wages Act, a person responsible to the owner for the supervision and control of the employees or for the payment of wages, alone has to be prosecuted. Similarly, Section 3 of the Payment of Wages Act makes it clear that, in respect of industrial or other establishments, the responsibility for payment of wage lies on a person responsible to the employer for the supervision and control of the industrial or other establishments. Without verifying the above fact as to who is actually responsible for the supervision and control of the industrial or other establishments, the private complaint has been filed as against the Managing Director, who is no way connected to the supervision and control of the industrial or other establishments in respect of the branch office situated at Chennai. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the prosecution is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
