Judgment · High Court · 2004

Shn P, Diwakar wiih:/M| : .Shri 'Ufka.rshVerma, Panel The petitioner has preferi[ ' | : 226 /227 of 'the ^eonstitution/ of and correctness of fhe order datedl leamed Judicial. Magistrate Fit-st'<l application of the petitioner'for dii| Sections 19{l)(b), 27(2)(a);;&^< lQ6o 'was rejeeted, against whiij revisio'n pefition befpre learned !n(( carae, to be dismissed by 'lear . 07.11.2003 (Annexure P-2),,. . Brief facts leading to .filing was Managing Director of^ Bhilai^ Steel" Authoritv ofyndia Limited; .urider the^Companies Aef,^ 1956) awarded to; bne cQntractQi-n riamell work be.engaged some ta.bbMi'ei's.l 1965 said icoritracjtor was|',requj| engaged by\hirafcir}tHeyeaFl<Q96- of bonus''ta the labburers and .regarding:the detaiIs'of:@ayFnent;o) a 'show caHse''ndf.ioe,:.wa&'issyed: regardiiig the paynient^W1 tMe documeHtsi showmg^ihe:@ftKment| [ss Pritha Ghosal,. GO.unse'' for' the. .' Awyer fbr the State, \ed this writ petition under Article Inpia^ questioning the'legattty, propfiety': [26,07.2001 (Annexure P-l^ passed fay plass Labour Court,;'Durg wliereby fhe |.charging him fTom!the charges underr fl.^t'ead'-with Section 28 :of Bonus Act' ];h the petitioner herein preferred a|- [ustrial Court, Raiour, which was also' ndd Industrial, Court-vide.order dateQ^ 'r :: ,' :|3f this petition are Ithat the peti.tioneri jSteel Pfant, Bhilai which is^a ynif of ! a Goyemmenf GampaEiy; regisLered -.It seems that somc'contraet ;was .,; :• ;|y A, Sen and in ordeF to execyte ttie As^per the provtsjons of Bonus Act; ' fed t6 ,pay bonusi to -fhe -;labourers'. !p7, but he :failed tQimake the.payn-ient: .iailed fo.,sybmi'.,the F'ormiA,.^,'& G • 'teoaus to the laboBrers.l Accprdingly,,;: ^|to ^tl^e^HtFaQtbr {£)E/slicssHiii.gjipapers i '•Kii^dMtol^BQB.ee'^ti'ie: -btaius',:ibut he [of ^ botius to tne :tat3ou.i-ers,l ^•tbereibre^ •r; n'ii Ei(!!.';:r . SII^T'®;' 1<M sig^r Sh*-t •^f^T' i p •1:::; KBtl":Si BKI '•v.y: 1: «:i •i:l:E- ^ .feM" a-HG-22 '^.WSssfSS^iSSsfS^ ':' '•::|::'3fflt?r^:'q^gR':" ^:; ^:' ;ly'' snts^ ^Stt^ .c- tllllEtl Bi!i I; ::ii ..Ki t-K K ii&' 'Wt^'gE'tff^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ 200 """""1^?"""""""""""""""' an^rtBiRw^ritg ctil<iT<'i<il'rt ''TCT^ ^ IN^ ^ iT3lP(FT3lBw the Labour Inspeetor filed a' eoi^iplaint against the 'said confractQR' • namelv A, :Sen and also •aRain^t Managing Director ^of Bhilai commission of offences punishable| read with Seetion 28 of Bt 27(4) Magistt~ate, Labour Court took the against yoth the acGused 'persons,| said ofiences and sehtence lo£;fine| Ste^l Plant at the relevant';tiHie, :the presenf petitidner, iwho was^:< fbK^ |under Sections '19(l)(b),, 27(2)(a) and ^ fenus Act 1965,' Thereafter,-learned''; bognizance of the above said offenees; Gontractor A, Sen:'7pleadeci. gHHty bf'\' of .Rs.1,,000/- was ^imposed on'birra,;.: that was already deposi'ted by hiin,| I have heard learned cQunse] ^fortheDarties,. ^ • . :' ' c.i; Learned .counsel for-ttie petij the complaint do not disclose any| tioner isubmitted that the contents of orfence against the'petitipner.as" fksf' contractor namelv A, Sen wHo eng^ the payment of .bonus 'not fBe | submits that in the eoinplai.nt :np been levelled, Moreover, the niain| pleaded guiltyiand sentence o£fin^ 1-ias lalreadydsposited,.therefbEe't:^i offences against the:presen:f petitig] Qn the ; other band, leamit petition and 'argued that unde;T's|' .Industrial Relations Act,, 1960. th^ prowismns of this section lfemplo^|i ^ the course' of'or) undertaking^m undertaking eontractswith any 'pef •coritract6r:pl'i:hew]iote or ariy paTtl of ttie; u.ndertaking,' the^pwaerjof tt|i Iged the laboyrers was responsible ior' lyrthep^ Ipresenf petitiQner,:. .Counsei lallegation againsf the petitioner; has'' laecused i,e, the cohtractor has'been lhas been imposed; dri'hirn, wtiich he'! |e drcler taking 'eognizance of the' said' J' jier be quashed, :1:/:'7:.^'::^ ti Panel Lawyer oppQsed, the writ:: ;• ,/! jub-section..(14) of'.Seeti6n:;:2 Qf €;©/i' word 'employeF' is^defineci. | 'As'pei-. lef' includes a;''persoH'owner jof.iany lor. lthe purpose of CQriduetiiiigi^the fsoE-/for; the execution ^bylbriunder; tKe ^of.any^wdrkwhicfa is btetiBlal'l^jaarE 'THereiore;1tl3e! owne? .undertakmg. ww" XI-HC-22 yi.tySlf^-^^^^ ^t^ilj ^:3M^tt^ffi^^i!»aKi3< . • Y::S^t.''q^K^^ ?< •^ ^INCTI stri^" ^^ ^^^^ ^ --"•-•-t^g";-------"-— ii3I1^3?' R-li?li;^11^T a)+iicft;^<^a at. sm' .^- of the undertaking'. where the w. under the deiinifiQribfihe'emplo^ provision of SectiQn:19[l)(b) 01 the| bound to pay'the bonus to the en^ is punisnable under Section 28 of| •Learned. eounsel <Sl<lFd<+l< *11W1? ^ ^Sil ,;<Ia|^K; ^iSlROTSlJ^t; : irk is 'being executed^.is:ials6 comes •er'.: He further argued'that as'per the" Bonus Act, 1965 the employer is duty ^plbyee and.contravention oTthe same .. i:: • Ithe Act, .! . ' : |3etifk)ner did not ••di&pute. ^hat l'tii-ne was Managing Director in Bhilai' tKe acci^sed/ petitipner.at the relevan^ Steel.

Rlant.and the-;worteijn_qi auestion was^being execdtecl by ebritractor A, Sen in the Bhilai Steel PIant,. as such in the capacity Qf'Managinj Director,'Bhilai Sfeel Piant, the p^ equally liable m make the paymen| admitted.ly not made. There'fore, Ifitioner was the employer and"he, was: I: of bonus to the labQurers,'whichwas1 'above' at this stage, in view of the provisions 01 lav?, prirna-facie offei^ m the result,?! am of the op| to make out a case for invoking thil the Constitution of India for quasl^ Court 'and the.petitidn of the pe| [[\ :accordingly, it is dismissed,; :: -i&Tnacie out.^: IGC against the petitioner ;nion that pefitioner has .nof been able: •jurisdiction under Article 226/227' of |ing the proceedings beibre tHe'LabouE :itioner is liable 'to be'dismissed sind:. Consequenfly, M, W, P. No,' 6|15/'04' 8» I.A, No.IS33/04 Als:Q:starad;. o <•- ft': :!1:1^ .dismissed. ; ^ ; ' . .: ' . i|E^:>bthan/Padm.a Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge ' "'l'''"1'-]'