Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M/s M.R.F. Limited (a company) and three of its directors, filed a criminal writ petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of a criminal complaint filed by the respondent, Goa M.R.F. Employees Union. The complaint alleged that the petitioners failed to grant paid holidays to their workmen on 04.06.1999 and 05.09.1999, which were declared as paid holidays by the Government of Goa in view of the general elections to the Legislative Assembly of Goa and the Lok Sabha elections, respectively. The complaint was filed under Section 135-B of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which penalizes an employer who fails to grant a paid holiday to an employee on the day of polling. The petitioners argued that Section 135-B does not create vicarious liability on the directors of a company, and that the directors cannot be held liable for the company's default. The respondent contended that the provision uses the term 'employer' which includes a company, and the directors, being in charge of the company's affairs, are liable. The court examined the language of Section 135-B and the relevant notifications. It held that the notifications were valid and binding, and the employer was obligated to grant paid holiday. The court further held that Section 135-B creates vicarious liability on the directors of a company, as the provision is intended to ensure that employees are not denied the right to vote. The court relied on the principle that where a statute creates an offence and provides for punishment of the employer, and the employer is a company, the directors who are responsible for the management are liable. The court found that the complaint disclosed the ingredients of the offence and there was no ground to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, and the criminal complaint was allowed to proceed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Vicarious Liability - Section 135-B Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Directors of Company - The court considered whether directors of a company can be held vicariously liable under Section 135-B for the company's failure to grant paid holiday on election day. The court held that Section 135-B creates vicarious liability on the directors, as the provision uses the expression 'employer' which includes a company, and the directors are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. The court relied on the principle that where a statute creates an offence and provides for punishment of the employer, and the employer is a company, the directors who are responsible for the management are liable. (Paras 2, 10-12) B) Criminal Law - Paid Holiday on Election Day - Section 135-B Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Employer's Obligation - The court examined whether the petitioners, including the company and its directors, were liable for not granting paid holiday on 04.06.1999 and 05.09.1999 as notified by the Government of Goa. The court held that the notifications were valid and binding, and the employer was obligated to grant paid holiday. The failure to do so attracts penal consequences under Section 135-B. (Paras 3, 6-8) C) Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Complaint - Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - The court considered the petition for quashing of the criminal complaint filed by the respondent union. The court held that the complaint disclosed the ingredients of the offence under Section 135-B, and there was no ground to quash the proceedings. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1, 13-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 135-B of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 creates vicarious liability on the Directors where the employer is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The criminal complaint against the petitioners shall proceed.
Law Points
- Vicarious liability
- Section 135-B Representation of the People Act
- 1951
- Criminal liability of directors
- Paid holiday on election day
- Company as employer
- Mens rea not required
- Strict liability
