Dr. Anchal Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioner For the Opp. Party :Mr. Manoj Tandon, (Advocate) :Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P. 04/21.09.2012 This application has been filed for quashing the order dated -----

19.01.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Case No. C III 21 of 2009 whereby and where under, he took cognizance of the offence under Section 22(A) of the Minimum Wages Act 1948. Shri Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for the same charge, petitioner has been exonerated by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ranchi vide order dated 25.03.2009 (Annexure - 3). Therefore, the present complaint case is liable to be quashed in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1996) 9 SCC 1. On the other hand, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the ratio of the aforesaid decision will not apply in this case, because the allegations made in the complaint petition is different from the allegations enquired by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ranchi.

He also submits that it is clear from the Annexure – 1 that the petitioner had violated various provisions of Minimum Wages Act and Rules, therefore, offence under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act made out against the petitioners. He submits that from perusal of the Annexure – 3, it is clear that a complaint filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ranchi for non-payment of minimum wages to the different employees. Thus, the subject matter of enquiry is different from the present complaint case. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the records of the case. From perusal of the Annexure – 3, it appears that the Assistant Labour Commissioner, -2- Ranchi initiated the proceeding on the basis of the complaint made by the Labour Enforcement Officer, Ranchi for non-payment of minimum wages to different employees and the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ranchi after making enquiry had come to the conclusion that the allegations made in the complaint petition is wrong.

Therefore, he dismissed the said petition. However, from perusal of Annexure – 1, it appears that the Labour Enforcement Officer has filed complaint petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi alleging therein that on inspection of the hospital, he found that the petitioner had not maintained register as per Section 18 of the Minimum Wages Act. He further alleged that the petitioner had also not issued the Identity Card as per Section 18 (3) of the Act. He also found violation of various provisions of Jharkhand Minimum Wages Rules as contained under Rules 26(1), 26(2) and 26(5) etc. Thus, I find that the subject matters of the present complaint case and the enquiry held by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ranchi are different. Under the said circumstance the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar (Supra) will not apply in this case. Thus, I find no merit in this case. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Umesh/- (Prashant Kumar, J.)