IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42523 of 2007 1. HARAKH CHAND JI KAKARHIYA SON OF LATE MUKUL LAL KAKARHIYA, PRESIDENT, BIHAR STATE JAIN SWETAMBER SHAMBHASHARAN TIRTH PAWAPURI, NALANDA, P.S.- PAWAPURI, DISTRICT- NALANDA, AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF 6/2 LITTLE RUSSEL STREET KAKARHIYA STATE, KOLKATA 2. DHIRAJ LAL JI KODARIYA, SON OF LATE BAN MALI DAS KODARIYA, SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE JAIN SWETAMBER SHAMBHASHARAN TIRTH PAWAPURI, NALANDA, P.S.- PAWAPURI, DISTRICT- NALANDA, AT PRESENT-22, NIRMAL CHANDRA STREET, FIRST FLOOR, KOLKATA-12 ……….PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. NAGENDRA PRASAD, LBOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER-CUM- LABOUR INSPECTOR, MINIMUM WAGES, GIRIYAK, NALANDA ……….OPPOSITE PARITES ----------- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. U.S.P. Singh, APP ------------------ 4 14/05/2010 Heard the parties. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 5.11.1999 whereby cognizance under Section 19 (4) of the Minimum Wages Act read with Section 175, 176, 353 and 375 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against these petitioners and another person. A complaint was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif on 15.10.1999 by the Labour Enforcement Officer-cum-Labour Inspector, Giriyak, Biharsharif against these two petitioners and another person. In the complaint it was alleged that the complainant was the Public Servant and authorized under 2 the Minimum Wages Act 1948. He went to the premises of Shree Jain Swetamber Sambhasaran Tirth Temple at 11 AM on 15.10.1999 and made query from the labourers about their wages. He demanded register but it was refused and threatening was given and under duress the complainant had to return. It was alleged that due to hostile behavior of the accused persons he could not examine the record etc. A prosecution was sought under Section 19 (4) of the Minimum Wages Act read with Sections 175, 176, 353 and 374 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was filed and the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Section 19 (4) of the Minimum Wages Act read with Sections 175, 176, 353 and 374 of the Indian Penal Code against three persons including the petitioners. Submission is that the petitioners were not at all responsible for the occurrence because they are outsiders and residing at Kolkata. They are old persons and are being harassed since 5.11.1999. The case is stalled and no progress has been achieved at all. It has further been submitted that these petitioners are of fair antecedent and Opposite Party No. 2 has lodged the prosecution case with ulterior motive for harassing these petitioners. The Minimum Wages Act prescribes for punishment to the employer who contravenes any 3 provisions of the Act or its Rule or Order. There is no denial that these petitioners are employer and so the Labour Enforcement Officer is justified in going and demanding the register to ensure the purpose of the Act. The very purpose of the Act is for ensuring that the labourers are paid their due wages. Obstruction was made and the register was not produced and the Labour Enforcement Officer had to return from there. In the present case, public complaint shows that obstruction was made to the Labour Enforcement Officer when he demanded the register in furtherance of duties given to him by the Government under the Minimum Wages Act and hence the complaint was considered and cognizance was taken. There is no illegality or impropriety in the order taking cognizance. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. It shall be open to the petitioners to file petition under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. or take other remedial measures, if so advised. avin (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)