Vicarious liability of company directors sustained where complaint showed responsibility for business under wage-law compliance

Alleged non-maintenance and non-production of statutory registers under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Rules framed thereunder were treated as sufficient to sustain prosecution of company directors on a vicarious liability basis where the complaint indicated responsibility for the business. The Court applied the settled principle that precise individual roles need not be pleaded at the complaint stage when the persons accused are shown to be in charge of the company's affairs. Objections based on the complaint referring to section 22A instead of section 22C were not accepted as a ground for interference, and the quashing request was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceeding against the directors of the company for alleged violation of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the cognizance taken thereon were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The allegations related to non-maintenance and non-production of statutory registers required under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Rules framed thereunder. The Court applied the settled principle that where an offence is committed by a company, its directors or other persons in charge may be prosecuted on the basis of vicarious liability, and it is not necessary at the complaint stage to specify the precise role of each director if the complaint shows responsibility for the business. Section 22(c) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was treated as in pari materia with section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, and the Full Bench rulings relied upon supported prosecution of directors along with the company. The objection that cognizance had been taken under section 22A and not under section 22C was not accepted as a ground for interference at that stage.

Conclusion: The application for quashing was rejected and the prosecution against the directors was held maintainable.

---