Summary
The Court quashed Minimum Wages Act proceedings against a company director and its State head. The complaint neither alleged the statutory basis of their personal vicarious liability nor arraigned the company as an accused. A director’s title alone did not establish responsibility, and the statutory due-diligence defence did not reverse the prosecution’s initial burden. The Court also stressed responsible prosecution and judicial scrutiny before issuing process, without deciding the disputed worksite-compliance merits.
Issues
- Whether the complaint established the statutory grounds for vicarious liability of the two officers.
- Whether prosecution could proceed without the company being accused and whether summoning was adequately founded.
Provisions considered
- Section 22C, Minimum Wages Act, 1948Vicarious liability required the specified responsibility for business or consent, connivance or neglect, with the company ordinarily arraigned; the proviso did not displace the prosecution’s initial burden. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 22, 27)
Held
- Under Section 22C(1), the prosecution first had to establish that the accused was in charge of and responsible to the company for its business at the relevant time. Merely holding office as director did not establish that condition. The no-knowledge or due-diligence proviso operated only after the main statutory requirements were met. (¶¶ 9, 10, 12, 13, 18)
- Section 22C(2) could reach an officer through consent, connivance or neglect even without overall daily control, but that personal functional or transactional role also had to be alleged and proved. The complaint contained no basis for either route against the appellant. (¶¶ 11, 17, 18)
- The company had not been accused or summoned. Applying the governing vicarious-liability precedents, its prosecution was mandatory here; possible exceptions where it no longer existed or a statutory bar prevented prosecution did not arise. This independently defeated the proceedings. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)
- Authorities had to consider the factual basis and the company’s response rather than prosecute mechanically, and the Magistrate still had to apply judicial scrutiny despite the public-servant exemption from preliminary examination. The Court highlighted missing worksite allegations without deciding their merits. Relief extended to the other accused State head. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34)
Result
Appeal allowed; summoning order and proceedings against the appellant quashed. The benefit extended to co-accused Vinod Singh, whose proceedings also stood quashed.