Karnataka HC Quashes Minimum-Wage Proceedings Against Bannari Amman Sugars And Directors Over Non-Penal Section 22B

In brief

The question

Whether the complaint and cognizance order could stand when the complaint alleged an offence under Section 22-B of the Minimum Wages Act, although that provision did not prescribe punishment for the alleged violation.

The court held

The Court allowed both petitions and quashed the proceedings against accused Nos. 1 to 7 in C.C. No. 1250/2023, arising from PCR No. 418/2023, before the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjanagud.

It also directed

It left the respondent at liberty to take appropriate action, if required.

01Facts

The Labour Inspector filed a private complaint alleging that the petitioners, including independent directors and other directors of Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., had violated provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Karnataka Minimum Wages Rules, 1958.

¶ 2–6, 9–12

The allegations followed a show-cause notice dated 13 July 2023; the company submitted a reply on 1 August 2023, after which the Inspector sought no further clarification before filing the complaint.

¶ 10

The Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons in C.C. No. 1250/2023.

¶ 2–6, 9–12

The accused sought quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging, among other things, the provision invoked and the absence of an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. for the petitioners residing outside Karnataka.

¶ 2–6, 9–12

02Issues

i.Whether the complaint and cognizance order could stand when the complaint alleged an offence under Section 22-B of the Minimum Wages Act, although that provision did not prescribe punishment for the alleged violation.

¶ 11

ii.Whether the Magistrate’s failure to comply with Section 202 Cr.P.C. before issuing summons to petitioners residing outside the territorial jurisdiction warranted quashing.

¶ 12

03Law Applied

Section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was identified by the Court as the provision under which action ought to have been sought for the alleged contraventions; Section 22-B was not a penal provision prescribing punishment for those violations.

¶ 11

Section 202 Cr.P.C. requires the Magistrate, in the circumstances applicable to the petitioners residing outside the jurisdiction, to conduct the prescribed inquiry or investigation before proceeding to issue process.

¶ 12

The Court also considered the complaint procedure under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the alleged contraventions of the Minimum Wages Rules, 1958.

¶ 2, 7

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 190 Section 200 Section 202

04Reasoning

The complaint and cognizance order proceeded under Section 22-B, but the Court found that Section 22-B did not prescribe punishment for the alleged violations and that the complaint should instead have sought action under Section 22-A.

¶ 11

The Magistrate’s failure to address this fundamental defect indicated non-application of judicial mind.

¶ 11

Separately, the petitioners in Crl.P. No. 2641/2024 were residents of Tamil Nadu, and the Magistrate issued summons without complying with Section 202 Cr.P.C.; the Court treated that omission as an additional ground for interference.

¶ 12

The Court also noted that, after receiving the company’s reply to the show-cause notice, the Inspector sought no further clarification before filing the complaint.

¶ 10