https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101216 A complaint alleging offences in the course of a company's business under the Payment of Bonus Act was held unsustainable when the company itself was not prosecuted and only the Managing Director was named. The court reasoned that the employer was the company, which has separate legal existence, so primary prosecution should lie against the company before liability is extended to persons in charge. It also held that vicarious liability cannot be invoked unless the complaint specifically pleads that the accused was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business. In the absence of that averment, the proceedings were quashed. en-us Sun, 25 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:49:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101216 A complaint alleging offences in the course of a company's business under the Payment of Bonus Act was held unsustainable when the company itself was not prosecuted and only the Managing Director was named. The court reasoned that the employer was the company, which has separate legal existence, so primary prosecution should lie against the company before liability is extended to persons in charge. It also held that vicarious liability cannot be invoked unless the complaint specifically pleads that the accused was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business. In the absence of that averment, the proceedings were quashed. Case-Laws Companies Law Sun, 25 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101216