THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8811 of 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed to quash the order in Crl.MP.No.3892 of 2008 on the file of IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, whereunder and whereby in pursuance of the application filed by respondent No.2 herein, the learned Magistrate ordered summons to the petitioners herein on 04.10.2008 requiring them to appear in person before the Court concerned on 15.12.2008. That notice is under challenge in this criminal petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. There cannot be any dispute that the inherent powers can be exercised, when there is an abuse of process of Court, or to secure the ends of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Magistrate has no power under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (for short ‘the 1965 Act’) to execute an award or order passed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short ‘the 1936 Act’) and therefore, the learned Magistrate lacks jurisdiction. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that by virtue of Section 39 of the 1965 Act, the provisions of the said Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any corresponding law and that the petitioners can invoke the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 15(5) of the 1936 Act. It is not in dispute that the order, dated 07.05.2008 with regard to the payment of bonus has been passed by the second respondent directing the petitioners herein to pay bonus for the accounting years 2001-02 to 2006-07, and the same is not under challenge. When a petition purported to have been filed for execution before the IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, the learned Magistrate ordered summons to the petitioners herein to appear before the Court. There is no provision under the 1965 Act conferring jurisdiction on the Magistrate to execute the order passed by the second respondent. Even the power of Magistrate under Section 15(4) of the 1936 Act is confined only to certain orders that may be passed under Section 15 of the 1936 Act. Order passed under Section 15 of the 1936 Act will give jurisdiction to the Magistrate concerned to pass appropriate orders for execution. The impugned notice is not an order within the meaning of Section 15 of the 1936 Act. Therefore, the learned Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to order summons to the petitioners. Further, the order of the second respondent, dated 07.05.2008 has not been challenged. Hence, the impugned notice is liable to be set aside. The criminal petition is accordingly, allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. However, it is open to respondent No.2 to avail such remedy as available to him under law. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J 8th OCTOBER, 2009. kvni