IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.17748 of 1999 1. M/s Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. At & PO Hathidah, District Patna through its General Manager 2. K. Selvaraj, General Manager, Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. At & PO Hathidah, District Patna 3. Sri R.P.P. Singh Executive Personnel & Administration, Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. At & PO Hathidah, District Patna .. .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sri Parmanand Kumar Labor Superintendent CUM Inspector Under Minimum Wages Act At & PO Barh District Patna .. .. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioners: Mr. V. N. Sahay, Advocate Mr. Arun Srivastava, Advocate For the State: Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Sr. Advocate ---------- 4 26-04-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Inspite of notice respondent No.2, the Labour Superintendent-cum- Inspector under Minimum Wages Act, Barh, Patna has not appeared. Petitioner No.1 is the Company and petitioners No.2 and 3 are its Manager and other officials who have prayed for quashing of order dated 28-5-1999 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh in Case No. 5 (Gc)/99 relating to offence u/s 22(a) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. On behalf of petitioners it has been strenuously argued that the complaint petition is malafide due to suppression of correct facts and it has been wrongly alleged that 84 workmen belonging to the establishment of the petitioners are being paid less salary in violation of Section 12 (1-Ka) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as amended by Bihar Act 5 of 1983. According to petitioners those 84 employees are not employees of the Company but of four of the contractors who have been engaged by 2 the petitioner- Company which holds a license as principal employer under the Contract Labour Regulation Act. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the regular employees of the petitioners- Company get wages according to the settlement u/s 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act made on 9-5-1997 contained in annexure-1 and the claim of 84 employees before the complainant is misconceived under law because the employees of the contractor cannot claim equality in the matter of payment of wages with the employees of the Company. The aforesaid contention appears to be attractive but on a careful perusal of the complaint petition and even letter of the complainant dated 8-4-99 (annexure-3) issued to the petitioners before the lodging of the complaint, it is nowhere mentioned or admitted that the 84 workmen in question are not workmen of the petitioners-Company but of some contractors engaged by the petitioners. Considering the scope of interference with the complaint case in question at the initial stage of cognizance in exercise of power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not found feasible or proper to accept the defence of the petitioner without such defence having been placed and proved before the court below. In view of apparent difficulty in accepting such defence at this stage without there being any admission of the complainant or any unimpeachable document, this court is helpless in giving relief to the petitioners at this stage. This 3 application is, therefore, dismissed with liberty that petitioners may raise their defence at appropriate stage before the court below which shall consider the same in accordance with law without any prejudice on account of this order. It is an old complaint case, hence the proceedings must be expedited and concluded in accordance with law. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the court below is directed to extend the benefit of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the petitioners if a prayer is made for that. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)