petitions COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records relating to the complaints in S.T.C.Nos.1219, 1221 and 1222 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Tirunelveli, and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.E.Ilango ^For R-1 : Mr.S.Prabha Government Advocate (Criminal Side) :COMMON ORDER These Criminal Original petitions have been filed praying to call for records relating to the complaints in S.T.C.Nos.1219, 1221 and 1222 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Tirunelveli.
2. It is averred in the petitions that the second respondent being Assistant Inspector of Labour filed cases in S.T.C.Nos.1219, 1221 and 1222 of 2010, against the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate, for the offences punishable under Section 33(1) of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, and the alleged violations in all the three cases are that the petitioner had not furnished certain particulars with respect to the workers as required by the complainant. The complaint has been filed against the petitioner by the complainant with a malafide intention, as he failed to nurture his illegal demand. All the three cases were filed without any sanction as required by Law. Further, cognizance was taken beyond the period of limitation as provided under the Act. Without issuing any notice, it is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner had not responded to the notice. The offences as alleged in the complaint are not made out and therefore, the proceedings as against the petitioner are to be quashed.
3. In the common counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, he denied the allegation of mala fide intention. The complaint was filed only after obtaining sanction from the authorities concerned as per the Act and also within the time as stipulated. Notices were issued in all the cases and the petitioner also acknowledged the same. Therefore, these Criminal Original petitions are liable to be dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that all the three cases have to be quashed, as the cases were filed only to take vengeance as against the petitioner and the same were filed after the period of limitation.
5. The learned counsel for the first respondent contends that there is no malafide intention and the cases are filed strictly in accordance with law and therefore, the Criminal Original petitions are to be dismissed.
6. With respect to the vengeance, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that only on his complaint, the second respondent was transferred and on filing the Writ petition, he came back to the same station and filed all the cases as against the petitioner. To strengthen his argument, there is absolutely no material before this Court to infer that in order to take vengeance, the cases have been filed by the second respondent.
7. It is seen from the records that only after obtaining sanction from the Competent Authority, all the cases have been filed.
8. Another point is that the complaint has not been filed within the time as stipulated under the Act. As per Section 36 of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence, except upon a complaint with the previous sanction in writing of the Chief Inspector or an Inspector within three months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector. Proviso clause reads thus:
? .. Where the offence consists of disobeying a written order made by a competent authority, the Chief Inspector or an Inspector, complaint thereof may be made within six months of the date on which the offences is alleged to have been committed.?
9. Here, the Assistant Inspector of Labour, issued an order, dated 12.12.2008 and the same was received by the respondent by post. For that the acknowledgement has also been filed by the respondent. Pursuant to the above said orders, show cause notices were issued on 31.01.2009 in all the three cases. Therefore, as per the proviso clause, six months time is stipulated to file a case where the offence consists of disobeying a written order. In all the three cases under challenge, the complaints have been filed within the time as stipulated under the Act. Therefore, this Court does not find any reasons to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., Hence, these Criminal Original petitions fail and accordingly the same are dismissed. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli, is directed to dispose of the S.T.C.Nos.1219, 1221 and 1222 of 2010 within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To The State of Tamilnadu Rep. By Mr.A. Rajaram Assistant Inspector of Labour, VI-Circle, Tirunelveli. .