IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 863/2013 BETWEEN:
1. The Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd. Regd. Office at 3rd Floor, K.H.B.Shopping Complex, National Games Village, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 047.
Represented by its Managing Director.
2. The Chairman & Managing Director The Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd. Regd. Office at 3rd Floor, K.H.B.Shopping Complex, National Games Village, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 047.
(Now by Managing Director since there is no post of Chairman and Managing Director).
3. The General Manager The Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd., Hutti P.O, Via Raichur & Raichur District, Hutti – 584 115.
4. The Deputy General Manager The Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd., Chitradurga Gold Unit, Post Office Box No.4, Tambra Nagar, Chitradurga – 577 501.
5. The Deputy Manager (Personnel) The Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd., Chitradurga Gold Unit, Post Office Box No.4, Tambra Nagar, Chitradurga – 577 501.
(By Sri.K.Ramachandran, Advocate for Sri.M.R.C. Ravi, Advocate) AND:
Sri.M.Prabhudevaiah Aged about 67 years, S/o Sri.Mruthunjayappa, Presently residing at No.17, 2nd Cross, Amrutha Layout, Mariya Street, Mariyanna Palya, Hebbal Dasarahalli, Bengaluru – 560 024.
(By Sri.H.N.Venkatesh, Advocate - Absent) ... Petitioners ... Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 28.07.2012 passed by the C.M.M, Bengaluru City in C.C.No.17443/2012 in taking cognizance of the offence and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.17443/2012 on the file of the C.M.M, Bengaluru City, Bengaluru.
This Criminal petition coming on for hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent is absent. Perused the records.
2. The main contention urged by the petitioners is that the complaint lodged by the respondent against them under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, is not maintainable for the reason that as on the date of retirement of the respondent in the year 2001, the complainant was drawing wages of Rs.6,150/- and as such, the provisions of the Payment of Wages act are not applicable to the petitioners. Secondly, the provision of Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act deals with the claims arising out of deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages and penalty for malicious or vexatious claims. It is not the case of the respondent that he has made any claim in respect of above subject, which were adjudicated by any of the parties constituted under the Act. On the other hand, the allegations made in the complaint are that the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.14293-294/1996 have not been given effect by the petitioners. In such event, proper remedy available to the respondent is to seek for relief before the appropriate forum and not under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. Since the averments made in the complaint do not constitute the ingredients of the offence under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, prosecution of the petitioners for the above offence is wholly illegal and abuse of process of Court. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
3. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of High Court of Kerala in the case of Kanayannur Service Co-operative Society Ltd. V/s V.Sarakutty reported in 1987 (2) LLJ 498 (Ker) (DB) with reference to para 11 which reads as under:
“We have already found that the Authorities under the Payment of Wages Act are not courts. We do so hold notwithstanding Section 18 of the Payment of Wages Act which confers on authorities under that Act limited powers of a civil court in some matters and deem such authorities as Civil Courts for certain purposes.”
4. I have considered the submission and perused the records.
5. The material allegations made in the complaint find a place in para 15 of the complaint which read as under:
“15. The Complainant/Petitioner respectfully submits that the H.G.M.L Copper Units Officers Association, Thamranagar, Chithradurga and Dr.S.Ilangovan, Chief Metallugist of the same unit, had challenged to quash the seniority list of officers of Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd. to pay parity of pay- scales from the period of the amalgamation of the unit in the year 1985 in Writ Petition Nos.14293- 294/1996 (S) before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to pass an order dated 01.03.2000, allowed the Writ Petition partly and the Petitioners are entitled to parity of pay-scale from 01.04.1996 and no arrears are payable prior to 01.04.1996 and thereafter the said petitioners and as well as the second Respondent had challenged the aforesaid order dated 01.03.2000 in Writ Petition Nos.14293- 294/1996 (S) in W.A.Nos.1004 and 1497/2001 and in W.A.Nos.5783-84/2001 respectfully. Consequently the appeal of the Employer i.e. Respondent were dismissed. The Respondent carried the same appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.783- 786/2005. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by its order dated 20.04.2010 has set aside the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka dated 01.03.2005 and remitted the appeals before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka to decide the matter afresh in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab and Another – Vs. Surjit Singh and Others [2009 (9) SC 514]. Thereafter the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to pass an order daed 01.12.2011 by confirming the earlier order dated 01.03.2000. the employees are entitled to parity of pay-scale from 01.04.1996. This Complainant/Petitioner was the employee of Chithradurga Gold Unit, Chithradurga, while he was retiring from the Accused/Respondent’s company in the 2001 under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) of the Accused / Respondents. Even after issuing the Legal Notice dated 06.06.2009 and 17.06.2009 to all the 5 Accused / Respondents are delaying to pay/settle the aforesaid dues to the complainant/petitioner. Hence, this complaint.”
6. The complaint is based on the order passed by this Court and not on account of any claim made by the respondent under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. There is no material whatsoever to show that the respondent has made any claim under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. On the other hand, the averments made in the complaint go to show that he has retired voluntarily from service in the year 2001 and the instant complaint is filed in the year 2012, after a lapse of 11 years. In any case, the allegations made therein, do not constitute any of the ingredients of the offence under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act.
7. Since there is no violation of Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act by the petitioners, the prosecution launched against the petitioners is contrary to the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act and cannot be sustained.
Consequently, petition is allowed. Proceedings in C.C.No.17443/2012 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE UN