Dr. Digambareppa vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J. - At the stage of admission itself, the matter is heard on merits.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader have submitted their arguments.

The present petition is filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.4435/2014 pending on the file of Principal JMFC-II Court, Raichur, for the offences punishable under sections 22 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and for violation of Rules 22(4), 28(2), 29(1) and 29(5) of the Minimum Wages Rule, 1950.

The Labour Inspector, Second Circle, Raichur, has laid a charge-sheet against the petitioner by name, describing him as Vice Chancellor of University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur, for the above said offences on the ground that on 12.3.2014 the Labour Inspector has visited the said University and found some violations of the provisions of Minimum Wages Act and Rules, that is to say University has not furnished Registers pertaining to the Annual Report and Registers in Form Nos. IV, V, VI and VII. It is further stated that on 3.5.2014 he had issued a show cause notice to the Vice Chancellor of University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur, and to one Sri I. Shankara Gouda, Assistant Research Director, University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur, granting three days time to furnish those documents or to give their reply. As the reply was not given or the documents were not furnished, the Labour Inspector has lodged a complaint before the Principal JMFC Court at Raichur. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner against which order the present petition is filed.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice that this petitioner was not at all working as Vice-Chancellor of University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur, as on the date of inspection by the Labour Inspector or on the date of issuance of show cause notice, therefore, no complaint by name is maintainable against this petitioner. He has produced the Government Notification in No. GS 7 AUD 2013 issued by his Excellency Governor of Karnataka vide order dated 2.2.2014 at document No. 7. The said Notification discloses that petitioner-Dr. D.P. Biradar, Registrar of University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur, was posted as Vice Chancellor of University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, for a period of four years with effect from 3.2.2014 or till he attains the age of 67 years whichever is earlier. In pursuance of the order passed by His Excellency Governor, the petitioner has taken charge as Vice Chancellor of University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, on 3.2.2014 itself. Document No. 8 which is attested copy shows that he has taken charge on that particular day itself. Therefore, it clearly discloses that as on the date of Inspection by the Labour Inspector i.e., on 12.3.2014 or as on the date of issuance of show cause notice on 3.5.2014, the petitioner was not at all working under any capacity in University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur. The complaint shows that the name of this petitioner has been specifically mentioned as Vice-Chancellor. In fact, the Labour Inspector without enquiring into the matter who was the Registrar of the University or who was the Vice Chancellor as on the date of inspection has issued show cause notice to the Vice Chancellor of University. But when he lodged a complaint he has taken the name of the petitioner for the reasons best known to him.

Be that as it may, it goes without saying that the complaint is not maintainable against this petitioner under any capacity because he was not at all attached to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur, as on the date of the alleged offences. The documents produced before this Court are the attested copies and particularly, notification bears serial number and date on which the said notification was issued by Raj Bhavan.

Under the above circumstances, I do not find any strong reasons to sustain the complaint against the petitioner and if it is ordered to be continued, it amounts to abuse of process of Court. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed and the proceedings deserve to be quashed.

The learned High Court Government Pleader tried to persuade me to give liberty to the Labour Inspector to continue the same proceedings by making some other competent person as authority who is taking care of University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur, but when it is not mentioned in the complaint who are all the accused persons and only the petitioner is cited as accused, it cannot be said that the said complaint can be continued in any manner. However, liberty is given to the Labour Inspector to file a complaint afresh if law permits and also in accordance with law.

With these observations, the petition stands allowed. The entire proceedings pending against this petitioner in C.C. No. 4435/2014 on the file of Principal JMFC-II at Raichur, stands quashed.