Gujarat High Court
Ignatius Navil Noronha vs State Of Gujarat on 25 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9943/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 9943 of 2025
==========================================================
IGNATIUS NAVIL NORONHA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MEGHA JANI(1028) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 25/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
Draft Amendment is allowed.
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Notice served and respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed reply.
2. By way of this application under Section 528 of the BNSS, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint in Criminal Case No.842 of 2022 pending before the learned Labour court, Ahmedabad and for quashing of all the orders passed therein and proceedings arising therefrom.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Company's premises were inspected on 24.05.2022 alleging non- compliance regarding maintenance of registers and records under Section 18 of the Act read with Rule 25(1) of the Rules. A detailed reply was submitted along with documents showing compliance with the Minimum Wages Act, the Payment of Bonus Act, the Payment of Gratuity Act, the Equal Remuneration Act, and the Contract Labour Act. It was also clarified that no Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Aug 26 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 21:59:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9943/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined overtime was taken, nine hours of duty was ensured, and weekly offs were provided. Despite this, the complaint was filed belatedly and cognizance was taken mechanically in violation of Sections 22A, 22B of the Act, though there is a specific bar against cognizance beyond six months. The complaint is therefore ex facie barred by limitation. It was further submitted that while the application of one director at Exh.3 was allowed on the ground that he was not responsible for the affairs of the Company, a similar application filed by the present applicant at Exh.7 was erroneously rejected by the Labour Court. Learned Advocate argued that the impugned order suffers from serious infirmity. The complaint neither discloses the essential ingredients of Section 18 read with Rule 25(1) nor makes any specific averments as to how the applicant was in charge of or responsible for the conduct of business. Mere designation as CEO without attributing any role is insufficient to fasten liability. The reliance on a Company resolution dated 08.11.2016 is irrelevant. Hence, the order dated 24.02.2025 and the complaint itself deserve to be quashed.
4. Learned APP for the respondent-State opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner, being the Managing Director and CEO of the Company, is directly responsible for compliance with statutory provisions. During inspection on 24.05.2022, certain lapses under the Minimum Wages Act were noticed. Although the Company submitted a reply on 13.06.2022 along with the overtime register, the same was found unsatisfactory, and violation of Section 18 read with Rule 25(1) was established.
Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Aug 26 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 21:59:09 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9943/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined Under Section 22C read with Section 22E, the CEO, being in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business, is covered within the definition of "employer" and can be held vicariously liable. The contention regarding limitation and cognizance raises disputed questions of fact, which cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction. Since the trial is in progress, no case is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 BNSS /12 pt Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, dismissal of the petition was prayed for.
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the documents on record as well as the averments made in Criminal Case No.842 of 2022, it appears that respondent No.2 visited the Company on 24th May, 2022 and observed certain contraventions of the provisions required to be complied with under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Gujarat Minimum Wages Rules, 1961. The complainant has alleged that the present petitioner, being the CEO, was responsible for such compliance, and therefore, a complaint came to be filed against three accused. However, since accused No.2 had already resigned, no cognizance was taken against him, as reflected in the report submitted by the Labour Officer.
6. Perusing the complaint, it appears that there are no specific averments as to how the petitioner was responsible for the supervision and control of the employees of the Company or for the payment of wages. The complaint has been filed under Section 22C of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which provides that if a company commits an offence under the Act, the Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Aug 26 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 21:59:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9943/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined company as well as any person in charge of its business shall be deemed guilty and liable to punishment. However, prior to lodging of the complaint, a notice was issued and a reply was submitted by the Company, wherein it was stated that the queries raised by respondent No.2 had been complied with. The bone contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner is that, for prosecuting any alleged contravention under the Minimum Wages Act, sanction under Section 22B of the Act is mandatory. In this regard, Section 22B(a)(b)(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 provides as under:
Section 22B: Cognizance of offences. (1) No Court shall take cognizance of a complaint against any pet-son for an offence-
(a) under clause (a) of section 22 unless an application in respect of the facts constituting such offence has been presented under section 20 and has been granted wholly or in part, and the appropriate Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf has sanctioned the making of the complaint;
(b) under clause (b) of section 22 or under section 22A except on a complaint made by or with the sanction of, an Inspector.
(2) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence-
(a) under clause (a) or clause (b) of section 22, unless complaint thereof is made within one month of the grant of sanction under this section;3 (b) under section 22A, unless complaint thereof is made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed.
7. As per Section 22B(2)(b), cognizance is required to be taken within one month from the date of sanction. In the present case, sanction was granted on 19 th September, 2022, and therefore, the complaint ought to have been filed on or before 18 th October, Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Aug 26 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 21:59:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9943/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined 2022. However, the complaint has been filed only on 11 th November, 2022, and is thus clearly time-barred beyond the limitation of one month. Despite this, the learned Magistrate proceeded to take cognizance. Further, in the complaint, there is not even a whisper with regard to limitation or any explanation for the delay caused. The learned Magistrate has also failed to exercise jurisdiction under Section 519 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 473 of the Cr.P.C.).
8. It appears that an application below Exhibit-7 was filed before the learned Magistrate, inter alia, contending that the petitioner was not a Director at the time of the alleged commission of offence and was not responsible for the day-to- day affairs of the Company. Hence, the complaint was not maintainable. However, the said application came to be rejected, and cognizance was taken.
9. It is needless to say that, prior to taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate was duty-bound to follow Section 223 of the BNSS. Though it is true that the complainant, being a public servant, was acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties while filing the complaint, at the same time, the provisions of Sections 223 to 226 of the BNSS are also applicable. In particular, Section 223(1) of the BNSS puts an embargo on the powers of the Court, inasmuch as no cognizance of offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Aug 26 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 21:59:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9943/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined Apex Court in the case of Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. ED., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1221. On this count also, the present petition requires consideration, as the learned Magistrate has committed an error in taking cognizance not only without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner but also in contravention of the specific bar contained under Section 22B of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is allowed. The complaint in Criminal Case No.842 of 2022 pending before the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad, as well as all orders passed therein and proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Aug 26 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 21:59:09 IST 2025