IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 908 of 2010() ------------------------------------ ST.NO.10/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CALSS MAGISTRATE COURT, RAMANKARY. ................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JACOB THOMAS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MULAMOOTTIL LEASING & HP. LTD., MARKET ROAD, KOZHENCHERRY, BRANCH PULINCUNNOO, PULINCUNNOO P.O. BY ADV. MR.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, GRADE-II, MONCOMPU. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.908 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.10/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ramankary, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 22(A) of Minimum Wages Act for violation of Rules 29 (1), (2) and (5) of Minimum Wages Rules. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that first respondent is not an officer appointed under Section 19(1) of Minimum Wages Act and the employment is not a scheduled employment as provided under Section 2(g) of the Act and there is no such establishment. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. The question whether there is an establishment as claimed by the prosecution or not is a mater which could be decided only on evidence. CRMC 908/10 2 Petitioner is entitled to raise all the contentions before the learned Magistrate at the time of trial. 4. Learned counsel then submitted that presence of the petitioner may be dispensed with, as the sentence provided for the offence is only a fine of Rs.500/-. 5. Considering the sentence provided for the offence, I do not find that learned Magistrate shall insist for the presence of the petitioner for the purpose of trial. Annexure-3 order sheet shows that earlier, petitioner was granted permission under Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure and non bailable warrant was issued finding that petitioner had misused the permission granted by not appearing before the court. Even though the case was posted for recording the plea on 7.10.2009, 5.11.2009, 4.12.2009 and 19.12.2009, the counsel, who has to plead on behalf of the petitioner, was not present. So, the plea could not, so far, be recorded. The case was thereafter CRMC 908/10 3 posted to 28.1.2010. On that day also, the counsel was not present, though another counsel represented, plea of that counsel cannot be recorded as permission was granted to record the plea of the counsel appearing for the petitioner. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 28.1.2010. If petitioner files an application to recall the warrant and either the petitioner appears or the counsel is present to record the plea, learned Magistrate may allow the application. Petition is disposed accordingly. 16th March, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv