Madras High Court
Ms.Deepa Watsa vs The Labour Enforcement Officer ... on 28 October, 2021
Crl.OP.No.16514/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 28.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Crl.OP.No.16514/2015 & MP.No.1/2015
[Video Conferencing]
Ms.Deepa Watsa ... Petitioner
Versus
The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central),
Government of India,
Ministry of Labour and Employment,
O/o. Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),
No.4, Haddows Road,
Shastri Bhavani, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondent
Prayer : - Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
to call for the records pertaining to the complaint in CC.No.2844/2013 on
the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai,
quash the same.
1
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.OP.No.16514/2015
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Srikanth
For Respondent : Mr.D.Simson
Central Government Standing
Counsel
ORDER
(1) This petition has been filed seeking interference with further
continuation of CC.No.2844 of 2013 now pending on the file of the
learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate at Saidapet, Chennai.
(2) CC.No.2844/2013 had been preferred as a complaint under Section
24 of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970,
[hereinafter referred to as ''the Act, 1970''] for alleged breach of Rules
81[1][i], 81[3] and 73 of the Act, 1970.
(3) The complainant is the Labour Enforcement Officer [Central] of
Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment.
(4) It is stated that the said official had inspected the works of the
accused who had been named as Ms.Deepa Watsa employed as Chief
Human Resources Officer, in Tata Sky Limited at Mumbai on
06.02.2013 at around 5.00 p.m., and found out that there were various
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.OP.No.16514/2015
violations of the Act. Breaches of Rules 81[1][i], 81[3] and 73 of the
Act, 1970, were said to have been found.
(5) A Show Cause Notice is said to have been issued on 06.02.2013.
Thereafter, claiming that no further steps have been taken by the
petitioner/accused, a complaint had been preferred, which had been
taken cognizance by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai at CC.No.2844/2013.
(6) The petitioner/accused/Ms.Deepa Watsa working as Chief Human
Resources Officer, in Tata Sky Limited has filed the present
application taking recourse to Section 482 Cr.P.C., and urging that
this Court should interfere with further progress of the said Calendar
Case.
(7) Heard Mr.V.Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.D.Simson, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the
respondent.
(8) A counter has also been filed by the respondent.
(9) The matter came up on an earlier date and Mr.V.Srikanth, learned
counsel for the petitioner stated that the Show Cause Notice which
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.OP.No.16514/2015
was dated 06.02.2013, had been received only on 24.04.2013 and a
reply had been given on 25.05.2013.
(10) It was stated that there has been compliance of all the defects which
had been pointed out and it was specifically pointed out by
Mr.V.Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner that though the
reply had been sent, it had not been mentioned in the complaint.
(11) Mr.D.Simon, learned Central Government Standing counsel, on the
other hand, however stated that the defects existed as on the date of
filing of the complaint and pointed out that the reply had been given
well after the stipulated period and therefore, stated that there was no
obligation on the part of the complainant/respondent herein to
consider the reply even if it had been sent.
(12) But I am perturbed with the yet another issue which had been raised
by the learned counsel for the petitioner and had therefore adjourned
the case to today giving liberty to both the learned counsels to
examine that particular fact, namely, the fact that the Company
which was the place inspected, had not been shown as an accused in
the complaint.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.OP.No.16514/2015
(13) It is highly improbable and I do not think that the respondent would
also agree to the contention that the respondent visited the office of
Ms.Deepa Watsa in her personal capacity. She is employed as the
Chief Human Resources Officer in Tata Sky Limited. It is also
common knowledge that like any other post, the person who holds the
post of Chief Human Resources Officer would also come and would
also go.
(14) It is the company which would continue to be in existence. It has a
separate legal entity. The Companies Act also provides that, for any
issues giving rise to a cause, a Company can be sued and a Company
can also sue even though it may relate to civil issues. Still, while
launching prosecution, legislation has always been careful to include
offences alleged to have been committed by Companies and that the
Companies should be made as an accused.
(15) The phraseology used practically in all legislations which deal with
offences relating to Companies always include the words ''as well as
the Company''. This is also included in the Companies Act, 2013,
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.OP.No.16514/2015
and also as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in
the Negotiable Instruments Act also. It is specifically stated that
under Section 25 of the Act, 1970, when any violation or infraction is
determined on inspection with respect to any of the Rules under the
said Act, the Company should be made as a party.
(16) Quite apart from the Company, the person who is incharge of the day-
to-day affairs, may also be included as an accused. Still,
interpretation has been given as to the person in-charge of the
Company and Courts have always looked at the actual person who
was incharge and was in control of the day-to-day activities. All and
sundry cannot be made as an accused. This would be in addition to
the Company which has to be necessarily shown as an accused.
(17) This aspect has been laid with much emphasis in the judgment
reported in 2012 [5] SCC 661 [Aneeta Hada and Others Vs.
Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited and Others], wherein
the specific issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether in
an offence alleged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, particularly in the teeth of Section 141 of the Negotiable
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.OP.No.16514/2015
Instruments Act, the Directors can be proceeded with in the absence
of the Company being made as an accused. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court laid down the law very clearly stating that the Company should
be made as an accused and placed reliance on the phraseology used in
the provision of the NI Act, which is also as found in Section 25 of
the Act, 1970, now complained of, namely ''as well as the Company''.
(18) Paragraphs 58 and 59 of the said judgment would be quite instructive
and they are extracted below:-
''58. Applying the doctrine of strict construction,
we are of the considered opinion that commission of
offence by the company is an express condition
precedent to attract the vicarious liability of others.
Thus, the words “as well as the company” appearing
in the section make it absolutely unmistakably clear
that when the company can be prosecuted, then only
the persons mentioned in the other categories could be
vicariously liable for the offence subject to the
averments in the petition and proof thereof. One cannot
be oblivious of the fact that the company is a juristic
person and it has its own respectability. If a finding is
recorded against it, it would create a concavity in its
reputation. There can be situations when the corporate
reputation is affected when a Director is indicted.
59. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive
at the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the
prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.OP.No.16514/2015
a company as an accused is imperative. The other
categories of offenders can only be brought in the
drag-net on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the
same has been stipulated in the provision itself. We say
so on the basis of the ratio laid down in State of
Madras Vs. C.V. Parekh [(1970) 3 SCC 491 : 1971
SCC (Cri) 97] which is a three-Judge Bench decision.
Thus, the view expressed in Sheoratan Agarwal Vs.
State of M.P. [(1984) 4 SCC 352 : 1984 SCC (Cri)
620] does not correctly lay down the law and,
accordingly, is hereby overruled. The decision in Anil
Hada V. Indian Acrylic Limited [(2000) 1 SCC 1 : 2001
SCC (Cri) 174] is overruled with the qualifier as stated
in para 51. The decision in U.P.Pollution Control
Board V. Modi Distillery [(1987) 3 SCC 684 : 1987
SCC (Cri) 632] has to be treated to be restricted to its
own facts as has been explained by us hereinabove.''
(19) Mr.D.Simon, learned Central Government Standing counsel however
took umbrage in placing reliance on this particular judgment stating
that it related to an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, whereas the present case revolves around violation
of the Rules appended with the Act, 1970. Learned counsel therefore
stated that the said judgment may not be applicable to the facts of this
particular case and to the legislation to which the complaint relates to.
(20) But for this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has an
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.OP.No.16514/2015
answer and he produced the ruling of a learned Single Judge of this
Court in Crl.OP.[MD] No.17573/2017 [HCL Technologies Ltd.,
ELCTO, Ilanthaikulam, Madurai, through its Associate Vice
President B.Subramani v. State of Tamil Nadu rep.by the Deputy
Inspector of Labour, III Circle, Madurai], vide order dated
12.10.2018.
(21) The learned Single Judge was also confronted with the prosecution
under the Act, 1970 and relied on Section 25 of the said Act and also
relied on Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited case
[referred supra] and observed that the provision under Section 25 of
the Act, 1970, is in pari materia with Section 141 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and therefore, was of the opinion that the dictum laid
down in the Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited case
[referred supra], will squarely apply to any complaint filed under the
Act, 1970 and stated that if a Company is not made as an accused,
then the prosecution will necessarily have to fail.
(22) I would very gladly follow the reasoning given in the above judgment
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.OP.No.16514/2015
and adhere to them and would also come to the very same conclusion,
namely, that in this particular case, since the Company has not been
made as an accused, the prosecution will have to fail.
(23) The prosecution cannot not survive and accordingly, further progress
in CC.No.2844/2013 would only be redundant and necessarily has to
be quashed.
(24) In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the
further progress in CC.No.2844/2013 now pending on the file of the
Court of XI Metropolitan Magistrate at Saidapet, Chennai, is
quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.10.2021
AP
Internet : Yes
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.OP.No.16514/2015
To
1.The XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Saidapet, Chennai,
2.The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central),
Government of India,
Ministry of Labour and Employment,
O/o.Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),
No.4, Haddows Road,
Shastri Bhavani, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.OP.No.16514/2015
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
AP
Crl.OP.No.16514/2015
28.10.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
