High CourtsSingle Bench(2003) 10 GAU CK 0001

Ashim Ratan Mukherjee vs Labour Enforcement Officer

Gauhati High Court · Decided on 27 October 2003 · Citation: (2004) 2 GLR 313

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.K. Kar, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 13 of 1997

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 347 words

S.K. Kar, J.—Heard Mr. S. Medhi learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that order dated 30.12.1996 framing charge against the petitioner was improper and illegal in view of the Act that the Court below over-looked the provision of Section 211 of the Cr.PC as the Complaint Petition does net disclose any offence u/s 22 of the Minimum Wages Act.

3.

Briefly stated, the complaint was lodged by the Labour Enforcement of Officer (Central), Chowkidinghee, Dibrugarh, alleging violation of rules under Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956 for which the accused-petitioner was liable to be prosecuted under the provision of Section 20(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The complainant has given details hew the Rules 3, 4, 5, 5(a) and 19(3) were violated by the accused.

4.

It was brought to the notice of this Court that the charge was framed without any reference to these rules and without mentioning as to what did the accused do which amounted to the violation of the provision of the said Rules. It is submitted that the allegations in the instant case has nothing to do with the Minimum Wages Act but the charge was framed by the Court below u/s 22 of the Minimum Wages Act.

5.

Also heard Mr. F.H. Laskar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

6.

On hearing the counsel of both sides, I find that the learned Court below has mis-conceived the law while framing the charge and accordingly the order dated 30.12.1996 cannot be sustained.

7.

The petition is allowed. The order dated 30.12.1996 is set aside. The case is send back for re-consideration of the materials on record and re-framing the charge under proper provision of section of law giving the parties opportunities to make their submissions.

8.

LCRs to be send back at once. The accused is directed to appear before the Court of CJM, Sibsagar within thirty (30) days to receive further orders in this context.

9.

The accused shall remain on bail, if granted earlier.

10.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.