1985 (8) TMI 275

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mills Limited, Sulurpet, for offences punishable under sections 28 and 26 read with rule 4(c) and section 27(2) of the Payment of Bonus Act. The charge was that for the accounting years 1980-81 and 1981-82, the petitioners failed to maintain a register in Form "C" and produce the same on demand by the Inspector. In S.T.C. No. 3366/84, the charge was that the petitioner failed to maintain registers in Forms 'A' and 'B' for the accounting years 1980-81 and 1981-82 and produce the same on demand by the Inspector, as required under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Section 26 of the Payment of Bonus Act deals with maintenance of registers. It requires every employer to prepare and maintain such registers in such form and in su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d where a person has been named as a manager of the factory under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), the person so named; and (ii)in relation to any other establishment... In the instant case, the facts admitted are that Abirami Cotton Mills Limited, Sulurpet, is a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It is a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act. An employer is defined under section 2(14) of the Payment of Bonus Act to mean the owner or occupier of the factory. In the present case, it is the company that is the owner of the factory and under section 26, the liability is cast upon the employer to maintain the registers. It is, therefore, clear that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of prosecution against the company, the persons who come within the categories of the persons described in the relevant sections cannot be prosecuted. The learned judge was dealing with a case under the Essential Commodities Act which is in pari materia with section 29 of the Payment of Bonus Act. The learned Judge further held that in the absence of an allegation that a partner or a director was in charge of and responsible to the company or the firm for the conduct of the business, the complaint is not maintainable. In State of Madras v. C. V. Parekh, AIR 1971 SC 447, it was held that conviction cannot be fastened on the directors as the liability of persons in charge can arise under that section only when contravention is by the compan....