AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.P. Sondurbaldota, J.—Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties the petition is taken up on board for hearing. Heard Shri N. Sardessai, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri M. Amonkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
This petition seeks quashing of the complaint dated 15th October, 2009 filed by the respondent alleging that the petitioners have committed offence punishable u/s 10(1)(a) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 (''the Act'' for short). The respondent is the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central). The complaint is sought to be quashed on the ground that the respondent is not authorised to take any action under the Act.
Shri Sardessai, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners by making reference to Section 12 and Section 2(e) of the Act submits that the action, if any, could be taken only by the State government or by an officer authorised in this behalf by the State government.
Section 12 of the Act provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act except upon its own knowledge or upon a complaint made by the appropriate Government or an officer authorized by it in this behalf. The term ''appropriate Government'' is defined u/s 2(a) which reads as follows:
2.(a) "appropriate Government" means -
(i) In relation to any employment carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or a railway administration, or in relation to a banking company, a mine, oilfield or major port or any corporation established by or under a Central Act, the Central Government, and (ii) In relation to any other employment, the State Government.
Mr. Sardessai, the learned Counsel points out that the petitioner is a Company with the primary objective of doing life insurance business and has been registered under the Companies Act. It is neither a Corporation established by or under any Central Act nor does it carry on any business under the authority of the Central Government, nor is it Railway Administration nor its business is in relation to a banking company, mine, oilfield or a major port covered by Section 2(a)(i) of the Act. It would therefore be covered by Section 2(a)(ii) of the Act and the appropriate Government for it would be the State Government. Therefore, any action for violation of the Act could have been taken only by the State Government or any Officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf. Shri M. Amonkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in fairness concedes to this position in Court. In the circumstance, the petition succeeds. The rule is made absolute. The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).