0

The Supreme Court of India Paves Way for Dignified Livelihoods: Imposes Stringent Measures to Abolish Manual Scavenging Menace

Blog, Supreme court , , , , , ,

Case Title – Safai Karamchari Andolan Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number – W.P. No. 17380 of 2017; 31345 of 2014 and W.P. (MD) No. 24243 of 2017

Dated on – 29th April,2024

Quorum – The Hon’ble Chief Justice and Justice J. Sathya Narayana Prasad

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case of Safai Karamchari Andolan Vs. Union of India & Ors., the Appellants instituted a Writ Petition seeking for the directions against the Respondents to cease the practice of manual scavenging, take Criminal Legal actions against the Respondents in the cases of violations, compensate fully the family of the victims who have attained death due to the manual scavenging, use machines for cleaning the septic tanks, and rigorously implement the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. Even after assurances from the authorities and the prevailing of the laws prohibiting the manual scavenging, the practice continues due to the entrenched social norms, caste-based discrimination, and systematic failures. The Appellants, in the present case, asserted that the practice of manual scavenging is a staid violation of human rights, eternalizing the cycle of tyranny and discrimination faced by the individuals engaged in this hazardous profession.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

  1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented for the extermination of manual scavenging and the rehabilitation of scavengers to more decorous job opportunities within Tamil Nadu.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that even after the applicability of laws like the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, manual scavenging persists due to systematic failures and social discrimination.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that they have taken all the requisite steps to prevent manual scavenging, inclusive of the machines for clearing the septic tanks and compensating for death.
  2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the accidents and the deaths concerning the manual scavenging occurred due to the shortcoming of the private contractors and that they have taken all the requisite actions as per law.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 2(j) of the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 prescribes the Definition of the term “Manual Scavengers”
  2. Article 23 of the Constitution of India prescribes the Prohibition of human trafficking and forced labour, including begging and similar forms of forced labour
  3. Article 23 of the Constitution of India prescribes the Abolishment of Untouchability
  4. Article 21 of the Constitution of India prescribes the prescribes the Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

ISSUES

  1. The main issue of the case whirls around whether the constant and unending practice of the manual scavenging violates the human rights as well as fundamental rights of the people engaged in the conduction of the manual scavenging?
  2. Whether the preventive measures taken by the Respondents are decent to exterminate the manual scavenging and ensure the welfare of the people engaged in the conduction of the manual scavenging?
  3. Whether the added instructions from the court are mandatory to address the issues efficiently

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Safai Karamchari Andolan Vs. Union of India & Ors., acknowledged the tenacious issue of manual scavenging and the impact of it on the fundamental rights as well as the human rights and dignity of the individuals involved in the job of manual scavenging. The court in this case observed the inadequate existing laws and measures to annihilate the manual scavenging efficaciously. The court, in this present case, stressed on the need for the multifarious varied approaches, inclusive of the legislative reforms, social awareness campaigns, and alternative opportunities for the purpose of a better livelihood, to tackle with the issue effectively. The court took into consideration the contentions of both the parties, i.e., the Appellants and the Respondents, and issued a series of guidelines and directions to the Respondent authorities, inclusive of:

  • Taking strict actions against those engaging in manual scavenging
  • Providing shielding equipment and mechanizing sewer cleaning
  • Ameliorating compensation for deaths and injuries concerning the manual scavenging
  • Framing schemes for benevolent appointments and rehabilitation of the manual scavengers
  • Assuring stringent enactment of the pertinent laws and enervating the workers about the legislative provisions and rehabilitation schemes

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

0

NEET Exam Becomes Inclusive: The Madurai Bench of Madras Court Orders Special Accommodation for NEET Candidate with Medical Needs

Blog, The Madurai Bench of Madras Court , , , , ,

Case Title – Ms. Monisha Vs. The National Testing Agency & Anr.

Case Number – W.P. (MD) No. 9920 of 2024

Dated on – 26th April, 2024

Quorum – Justice G. R. Swaminathan

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case of Ms. Monisha Vs. The National Testing Agency & Anr., the Appellant instituted a Writ Petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition was instituted before the Madurai Bench of Madras Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus for instructing the National Testing Agency  (NTA), Respondent No.1, to allow the Appellant to wear a diaper and change it once or twice during the NEET (UG)-2024 Examination that is to be held on the 5th of March, 2024 since the Appellant, in the said case, suffers from the lack of control on urine due to a medical condition, which was developed when the Appellant was around 4 years old and was scalded by hot oil accidently and is taking treatment for LETM/NMO/Spectrum Disorder/ Neurogenic Bladder on OPD basic, for which she requires to wear a diaper continuously as well as change it more often.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

  1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that due to the prevailing medical condition, she needs to wear a diaper during the examination and requires to change it as and when needed.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that denial of the permission to wear a diaper during the NEET (UG) exam and changing the same as and when required is a violation of the basic human rights of the Appellant under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, especially the principle of reasonable accommodation.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case initially did not respond to the representation of the Appellant on dated 8th of March, 2024, compelling her to institute a Writ Petition.
  2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case, contended that the dress code of the examination of NEET (UG)-2024, does not address the particular concerns raised by the Appellant in regard to wearing a diaper during the examination.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Article 14 of the Constitution of India prescribes that The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the Indian territory, on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth
  2. Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India prescribes that The State may continue to make laws that provide special provisions for women and children
  3. Article 21 of the Constitution of India prescribes that No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedures established by the law
  4. Section 20(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, mandates that no government establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to the employment
  5. Section 17 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, expects the appropriate government and local authorities to take specific measures to promote and facilitate inclusive education
  6. Section 2(y) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, defines the term “Reasonable Accommodation”
  7. Section 2(h) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, defines the term “Discrimination” in relation to disability

ISSUES

  1. The main issue of the case whirls around whether the principle of reasonable accommodation should be unfurled to individuals with special needs, despite them not falling in the ambit of disabilities recognized by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016?
  2. Whether the request of the Appellant to wear a diaper and change the same during the ongoing examination of NEET (UG)-2024 is justifiable under the provisions of the Constitution of India and pertinent legal principles?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Ms. Monisha Vs. The National Testing Agency & Anr., observed that although the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, does not overtly cover individuals with special needs outside its recognised disabilities, the principle of reasonable accommodation should be applied to all the individuals with special needs. The Court, taking into consideration, the medical condition of the Appellant and the indispensability to wear a diaper as well as a change it as and when required, the court held that the denial of this facility to the Appellant would amount to discrimination under the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court, in this present case, instructed the examination authorities to accommodate the special needs of the Appellant during the NEET (UG)-2024 examination by allowing her to wear a diaper as well as a change it as and when required. The court stressed on the gravity of furnishing the apt facilities, inclusive of adequate toilet amenities and sanitary products, for all the candidates, specifically girls, to evade discrimination and assure a fair examination process.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

0
delhi high court

Delhi High Court upholds EC Commissioner order for compensation to parents of deceased employee by upholding that the deceased person was an “Employee”

blog , , , , , , ,

Case title: M/S Madras Trading Co v. Ramjeet @ Ramjeet and Anr

Case no: FAO 119/2017 & CM APPL. 9580/2017, CM APPL. 28069/2018

Dated on: February 13th, 2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharmesh Sharma

Facts of the case:

The appellant herein is a proprietorship concern run by Mr. Sukhpreet Singh, and it is engaged in a small business of sale of air conditioners and spare parts. The respondents were the claimants before the Employee Commissioner and are the legal heirs/parents of the deceased. The claimants filed Statement of Claims before the Commissioner on 27.07.2015, stating that that their deceased son Tata, was employed with the appellant as an AC Mechanic at a monthly wage of Rs. 15,000/-. On 30.04.2014, Sh. Tata was sent by the appellant to do AC repair work wherein the AC compressor burst resulting in fatal injuries and his death at the age of 25 years. An FIR was registered on 01.05.2014 at P.S. Kirti Nagar, on statement of coworker Sh. Sanjay Kumar who along with the deceased had gone to carry out work when the accident occurred. He stated that both of them were employed with the appellant firm and are entitled for compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- along with penalty of 50% and interest @12% per annum, payable from the date of the incident till realization. The appellant on 09.12.2015 replied by denying the “employer-employee‟ relation and objected for non-enclosure of any documents/proofs to prove such employer- employee relationship. The learned Commissioner framed the following issues “(i) whether the employee – employer relationship exists between the parties? – (ii) Whether accident resulting into death of the deceased is caused out of and during the course of employment and if so, to what amount of death compensation, the dependents of the deceased are entitled to? (iii) Relief, if any? The learned Commissioner decided in favor of the claimants/respondents by holding that the claimant’s evidence was reliable and sufficient in proving the events. However, the respondent firm (appellant herein), failed to prove that there exists no employer- employee relationship. The learned Commissioner held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 8,67,640/- along with simple interest @12% per annum w.e.f. 29.07.2015. Hence, this appeal.

Contentions of the appellant:

The learned Commissioner finding is perverse. The “employer-employee‟ relation between the deceased and the appellant firm, was decided solely on the FIR by completely ignoring the contradictions in the testimony of the claimants during cross-examination. An FIR is not a piece of substantive evidence as it requires corroboration through documentary, circumstantial or oral evidence. It is contended that apart from the “Control Test‟, “Integration Test‟ also needs to be considered such as the power to select and dismiss, to pay remuneration, deduct insurance contributions and the “mutual obligations‟ between the employer and the employee as well. The only evidence put forth by the respondents/claimants is a photocopy of the visiting card of the appellant. The testimony of respondent No.1 as well as of Sanjay Kumar was inconsistent. The appellant firm is not engaged in the business of AC repair but is a small proprietorship concern engaged in the sale of Air Conditioners and that they have not employed any persons.  

Contentions of the respondent:

The order passed by the learned Commissioner is well reasoned and has been passed after a thorough consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the materials placed on the record. The grounds taken by the appellant in the present appeal are misconceived and baseless. There is no substantial questions of law involved.

Issues:

Whether the Respondents are entitled to claim compensation under the EC Act?  

Legal provisions:

Compensation Claim under EC Act- Workers can file claims for compensation directly with the Commissioner or through a lawyer.  

Courts analysis and Judgement:

An appeal under Section 30 of the EC Act lies to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner ie (a) an order awarding as compensation; (aa) an order awarding interest or penalty (b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half- monthly payment; (c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependents of a deceased employee, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependents; (d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under Section 12 (2). It is further provided by way of a proviso that no appeal lies against any order unless a “substantial question of law‟ is involved in the appeal. In the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. Sujatha, the Supreme Court considered the scope and ambit of Section 30 of the EC Act as to what would constitute “substantial question of law‟, the question such as “whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependants of the deceased employee the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident, etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRs sue(s) his employer to claim compensation under the Act” The aforementioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and, therefore, to be proved with the aid of evidence. Once they are proved either way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded as the findings of fact.” The learned Commissioner has given a categorical finding that the deceased workman suffered fatal injuries during the course of his employment with the appellant. The reliance by the Commissioner on the contents of the FIR and statement of co-worker cannot be faulted. The proceedings under the EC Act are summary in nature and hence strict adherence to provisions the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be applied. There are grounds by which it can be presumed that the facts were truthfully revealed regarding the circumstances which resulted in the fatal accident and was correctly incorporated by the Investigating Officer. The claimants are from poor background who are illiterate and ignorant. The Visiting card in possession is sufficient to show the connection of the appellant as an employer with the Respondent’s deceased son. Once the Claimants had laid the basic foundation to the claim, the onus then shifted upon the appellant to disprove the fact that there existed no employer-employee relationship between the parties. The appellant could have even summoned and examined the co-worker Sanjay Kumar to disprove the relationship of employer and employee. The plea of respondent No.1 acknowledging that he did not know the proprietor of the appellant can be taken considering the background of the parents. There is no apparent reason for the Investigating Officer to have fabricated the FIR or for the co-worker Sanjay Kumar to have given a false statement soon after the accident. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order does not suffer from any patent illegality, perversity or incorrect approach adopted in law. The present appeal is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000/- which be paid to the respondents No. 1 and 2 in equal share within one month from today, failing which they shall be entitled to claim the same with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till realization. The pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.  

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.

Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V.

Click here to read the judgement





















 

0

At the stage of considering bail, Court to exercise utmost diligence in evaluating the prima facie allegations against the accused- Delhi High Court

blog , , , , , , , ,

Case title: Sunny Alias Ravi Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi.

Case no: Bail Appln. 3580/2023

Dated on: 29th April, 2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan.

Facts of the case:

The present application is being filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking a grant for regular bail in FIR No.255/2023 on 10.03.2023 for offences under Sections 376/354D/506 the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). It is alleged that the applicant used to stalk the prosecutrix and claimed that he loved her. It was stated that after the prosecutrix rejected the applicant, the applicant had threatened her. It was declared that on 01.12.2021 the applicant had called the prosecutrix at GTB Nagar metro station, the applicant then had threatened the prosecutrix with suicide due to which the prosecutrix agreed to meet him and have regular conversations with him. In December 2021 the applicant took the prosecutrix to his friends house in Aadarsh Nagar, and forced her to have sexual relations with him for the first time. It was stated the applicant took the prosecutrix to a hotel named Welcome Hotel 5-6 times and forced her to have sexual relations with him. It is alleged that the applicant took the prosecutrix to Haridwar on April,2022 and allegedly married the prosecutrix there. Later on, the prosecutrix found out that the applicant was married and also had two children. It was also stated that the applicant would demand gifts from the prosecutrix leading her to give him nearly Rs. 1.5 lakhs in cash and many other items. On 07.03.2023, the applicant had called the prosecutrix when he was intoxicated and told her to meet him at Aadarsh Nagar Metro Station from there the applicant took her to the Welcome Hotel and forced her to have unnatural sex with him. A medical examination was conducted of the prosecutrix at BJRM hospital Delhi, and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. Chargesheet was filed under Section 376/354D/506 of IPC.

Contentions of the prosecution:

It was alleged that the applicant used to stalk the prosecutrix and also claimed that he was in love with her. It is alleged that after the prosecutrix rejected the advances of the applicant, the applicant threatened her. It was stated that on 01.12.2021, the applicant called the prosecutrix at GTB Nagar Metro Station. When the prosecutrix reached to meet him, the applicant threatened her with suicide due to which the prosecutrix agreed to meet him and have regular conversations with him. It was alleged that in December, 2021, the applicant took the prosecutrix to one of his friend’s house in Aadarsh Nagar, and forcefully established sexual relations with the her for the first time. It is alleged that thereafter, the applicant took the prosecutrix to a Hotel, namely, Welcome Hotel, about 5-6 times, and forced her to have sexual relations with him there. It is alleged that the applicant also took the applicant to Haridwar in April, 2022 for three days and allegedly married the prosecutrix there. Later, found out that the applicant was married and had two children. It is alleged that the applicant used to demand gifts from the prosecutrix and she had allegedly given ₹1.5 lakhs in cash, two mobile phones, clothes and two silver rings to the applicant, and also resorted to violent means when she did not pay heed to his demands. on 07.03.2023, the applicant called the prosecutrix when he was intoxicated and forced her to meet him at the Adarsh Nagar Metro Station, the applicant thereafter took the prosecutrix to the Welcome Hotel and forced her to have unnatural sex and beat her when she refused. A medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted at BJRM Hospital, Delhi and her statement was also recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. The chargesheet was filed under Section 376/354D/506 of IPC. The Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the present bail, saying that there is a high possibility that the applicant could extend the threats to the prosecutrix’s family, and therefore, the bail application to be dismissed.

Contentions of the applicant:

The case that was filed against the applicant is basically to humiliate, torture him and to harass him and he has been in judicial custody since 10.03.2023. It was stated that there are material differences in the FIR and the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. It is also contended that as clear from the contents of FIR, the relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix was consensual in nature and had continued for two years. It was further submitted that the custody of the applicant is not necessary for the investigation, as there are no chances of the applicant to abscond or flee from justice, and that the promise of marriage is completely absurd and untrue. Lastly, he says that there has been an unnecessary delay in the filing of an FIR which increases the suspicion about the allegations made by the prosecutrix.  

Issue:

Whether the Bail application filed by the Applicant is to be allowed?  

Legal provision: 

Section 376 of IPC- Rape the punishment is not for less than 10years, which may extend to life imprisonment and, a fine.

Section 354D of IPC- Stalking any man who repeatedly follows, contacts, or monitors a woman’s communication despite her clear disinterest will amount to imprisonment for three years.

Section 506 of IPC- Criminal intimidation.

Section 164 of CrPC- empowers a magistrate to record a person’s testimony or confession regardless of whether or not he has the jurisdiction.  

Courts analysis and judgement:

The Court, while considering the application for bail, has to consider the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment and prima facie involvement of the accused. The Court is now not required to enter into the detailed analysis of the evidence. The bail is not to determine the guilt but it’s only a safeguard to ensure the accused’s right to liberty, pending trial. The court needs to maintain balance between securing the complainant’s interest and safeguarding the accused’s right. In the present case, the allegations levelled is that the Applicant had established forceful physical relations with the prosecutrix on multiple occasions on the false pretext of marriage. It is not denied that the prosecutrix had known the applicant for a long time. The alleged incident, for the first time, is said to have taken place in the month of December, 2021, however no complaint was made at the time. Thereafter, the prosecutrix continued to have sex on several occasions and even then, no complaint was made by her. The prosecutrix got FIR registered on 10.03.2023, that is, almost after fifteen months from the first alleged incident The Hon’ble Supreme Court Apex Court, in Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of U.P. (1994) 5 SCC 188, held that Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story…” The prosecutrix has not mentioned date or time of the alleged incidents. The prosecutrix was a major and hence the consent of the prosecutrix whether vitiated by a misconception of fact arising out of a promise to marry can be established only at the time of trial. The averment of the applicant that there are discrepancies between the FIR and Section 164 CrPC statement is also a matter of trial. At this stage, no evidence has been adduced to show that the applicant had made forceful relation with the prosecutrix or has issued any threats of making viral her photographs or has demanded money, mobile phones from the prosecutrix. It is apparent that the prosecutrix was meeting the applicant for quite some time before filing the complaint and wanted to continue their relationship despite knowing that the applicant is a married man. The decision to continue with the relationship points towards her consent. The actions at this stage, does not suggest passive acquiescence under psychological duress but implies towards her consent which is devoid of any kind of misconception. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra: (2019)SCC 608 has laid out as to when a “promise to marry” is a “false promise” or a “breach of promise”. The Supreme Court held that two propositions must be established to establish whether the “consent” was vitiated by a “misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to marry ie the promise of marriage must have been a false, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered. The false promise must be of immediate relevance or bear direct nexus to the woman& 39 decision to engage in the sexual act. At the stage of considering bail, it is neither appropriate nor feasible for the court to draw conclusion, as to whether a promise of marriage made to the prosecutrix was false and in bad faith with no intention to adhere. This issue can be determined after an assessment and evaluation of evidence. It is imperative on the part of Court to exercise utmost diligence in evaluating the prima facie allegations on cases to case basis especially when there are contentious issues of consent and intent. Further, it is not in dispute that the antecedents of the applicant are clean. The applicant, is aged about 34 years and is in custody since 10.03.2023 and has a wife and two minor children to take care of. Keeping the applicant in jail will not serve any useful purpose. 
In view of the above, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case; b. He shall not contact the complainant other witnesses; c. The applicant shall not travel out of the country without prior permission; d. The applicant shall not tamper with evidence nor indulge in any unlawful act or omission which would prejudice the trial. The applicant to appear before the learned Trial Court as and when directed. The applicant shall not visit the locality where the prosecutrixy resides. The applicant to provide the address where he would be residing and shall not change the address without informing the concerned IO/ SHO; h. The applicant to give his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone active and switched on at all times. In the event of any FIR/ DD entry/ complaint lodged against the applicant, State can seek redressal by filing an application for cancellation of bail. The observations made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the only the present bail application and should have no bearing on the outcome of the Trial and shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The bail application is accordingly, allowed.  

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.

Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V.   

Click here to read the judgement

0

Inclusion of Companies as Necessary Parties in Minimum Wages Act Offences: Karnataka High Court’s Ruling

Blog , , , ,

Case Name:  Padpara Patti Syed Basha Aysb v. The Labour Department Government Of Karnataka 

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 14973 Of 2023 (Gm-res) 

Dated: March 26, 2024 

Quorum: Justice S Vishwajith Shetty 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

In a criminal complaint filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mr. Padpara Patti and Mr. Sameer Sulathana were named as accused parties. The lawsuit claimed that the 1948 Minimum Wages Act’s Section 25, Rules 7, 9, and 21 had been broken. 

In accordance with Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution, the accused petitioners filed a writ case before the Karnataka High Court. They demanded that the Criminal Complaint’s whole proceedings be cancelled. 

In a writ petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., petitioners, who are accused nos. 1 & 2 in a criminal complaint pending before the Court of JMFC-II, Shivamogga, are registered for the offence punishable under Section 25, Rules 7, 9 & 21 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Their prayer is to quash the entire proceedings in the aforementioned criminal complaint.  

A writ case was brought by the accused petitioners before the Karnataka High Court, in compliance with Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution. They requested that all procedures related to the Criminal Complaint be stopped. 

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER: 

The accused petitioners invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution to file a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court. Their main argument was to dismiss the Criminal Complaint and all of its procedures. They contended that they were no longer in directorship roles at Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd., the involved firm. They further argued that the corporation was not listed in the complaint as an accused party.  

The applicants’ learned counsel claims in court that they are no longer directors of the business. He makes the submission that the Company is not named in the lawsuit as an accused party. The complaint cannot be maintained as a result. He, therefore, pryaed before the court to grant the request. 

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 

The learned counsel for the respondents alleged that the prayer included in the petition to be rejected by the respondent-state’s learned High Court Government Pleader. Respondent No. 2, a Labour Inspector, has filed a private complaint against the petitioners in this case with the Trial Court.  

He claims to have received a complaint about the nonpayment of minimum wages from the workers of the company Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd. Despite the complainant purportedly serving the accused with a show-cause notice, the accused failed to provide the necessary documentation, address the infractions, or reply to the notice. 

It was vehemently argued that he had filed a private suit with the Trial Court because of these conditions. Following its acknowledgment of the charges reported in the complaint, the Trial Court sent summonses to Accused Nos. 1 and 2, and the case was filed under C.C. No. 104/2022 against the petitioners for the aforementioned violations.  

LEGAL PROVISIONS: 

  • Section 22(C) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948- Offences by companies: If the person breaking any law under this Act is a company, then everyone who was in charge of the company at the time of the offence and accountable to it for the way the company conducted its business will be considered guilty of the crime and will face appropriate legal action and punishment. With the caveat that if the person can demonstrate that the crime was committed without their knowledge or that they took all reasonable precautions to stop it from being done, they will not be subject to any of the penalties outlined in this Act.  

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT: 

The court declared that a cursory reading of the aforementioned section of the law makes it clear that, in the event that an organisation is the subject of an offence under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, both the organisation and its managers will be presumed guilty of the offence and subject to legal action and punishment.  

The court further held that the petitioners in this case are being tried in their capacities as Directors of the Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd. company, and it is alleged that they are accountable vicariously on behalf of the company. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable if the Company is not named as accused in the complaint.  

Further, the court has noted that the only way to impose vicarious liability is through a statutory provision; in other words, a legal fiction must be established in order to achieve this goal. The petitioners in this case are requesting to be prosecuted on the 

the idea that they bear vicariously responsible for the Company’s operations. If it is the case, the Company has to be included as a party, and if the accused is accountable for the Company’s actions, legal fiction has to be made against the Company and the accused.  

At last, the court declared that the Writ petition may be granted. This resulted in the cancellation of the whole criminal case that was pending before the Court of JMFC-II, Shivamogga. The case stemmed from PCR No. 16/2022, which was registered for violations that were punishable under Section 25, Rules 7, 9 & 21 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.  

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora. 

 

Click to view judgment.

1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 1,687