IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1915 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST S.T.NO.702/07 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,KALPETTA PETITIONER: FIRST ACCUSED: -------------------------- SABU ZACHARIAS.K., S/O.V.S.KUNCHERIA, AGED 45 YEARS, MUTHOOT CENTRE, PUNNEN ROAD, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.STEPHEN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS: -------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER-GRADE II. KALPETTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.1915 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act and Rules. 2. Two contentions are raised justifying the claim for invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. First of all it is contended that the petitioner herein is not the employer in respect of the establishment. But Annexure-A9 produced by the petitioner does itself show that on the application of the establishment, the petitioner's name has been shown as employer in the relevant documents. Without expressing any opinion on the acceptability of the petitioner's contention that the petitioner is not the employer in respect of the establishment, I am satisfied that at the moment and with the available inputs, the said contention cannot be accepted and premature termination of proceedings cannot be brought about by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C. No.1915 of 2008 2 3. The second contention raised is that the alleged employees in respect of whom violations alleged are not employees of the petitioner's establishment. They are the employees of the sister concern who were sent for training and who happened to be present in such establishment. They are not employees. They are only trainees, it is contended. 4. That question of fact in dispute cannot obviously be resolved in this proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the prayers made in this petition cannot be accepted. 5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Needless to say that the petitioner can apply for exemption before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate must consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-