TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Wipro Chairman and Managing Director's complaint proceedings quashed under Equal Remuneration Act 1976 for lack of vicarious liability</h1> <h3>Azim Premji Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lucknow And Anr.</h3> Azim Premji Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lucknow And Anr. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Quashing of complaint proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C.2. Vicarious liability of the applicant.3. Application of judicial mind by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.4. Compliance with Section 202 Cr.P.C.5. Involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence.Summary:Quashing of Complaint Proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C.:The applicant sought quashing of the complaint proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, and the summoning order dated 03.09.2016 along with the order dated 08.02.2017 issuing a bailable warrant against him. The court found that the summoning order and the subsequent bailable warrant lacked necessary legal and factual foundation, and thus, the proceedings were quashed.Vicarious Liability of the Applicant:The applicant, Chairman and Managing Director of Wipro Ltd., argued that he had no administrative control over G4S Secure Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., the service provider for security services at Wipro's Lucknow office. The court agreed, noting that the applicant could not be held vicariously liable for the alleged violations by G4S, as there was no direct involvement or control over their operations.Application of Judicial Mind by the Chief Judicial Magistrate:The court observed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate failed to apply judicial mind while issuing the summoning order and the bailable warrant. The summoning order did not mention the content of the challan and was passed mechanically without sufficient material to summon the applicant.Compliance with Section 202 Cr.P.C.:The court noted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not ensure compliance with Section 202 Cr.P.C., which mandates an inquiry when the accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the court. This non-compliance was a significant ground for quashing the proceedings.Involvement of the Applicant in the Alleged Offence:The court found that the applicant had no direct involvement in the day-to-day operations of Wipro's Lucknow office or managerial control over G4S. The contractual agreement between Wipro and G4S clearly outlined that the security personnel were independent contractors, not employees or agents of Wipro. The court highlighted the applicant's impeccable reputation and contributions to society, concluding that the proceedings against him were unfounded and an abuse of the process of law.Conclusion:The High Court quashed the complaint proceedings, summoning order, and bailable warrant against the applicant, emphasizing the lack of application of judicial mind and non-compliance with legal provisions by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed.
TaxTMI 