Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2010 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (4) TMI 615 - HIGH COURT OF MADRASWhether petitioners would not fulfil the definition of the term "employer" as per section 2(e) of the Act ? Held that:- In the instant case, it is the eighth accused, who alone has been named as the manager in clause 11 of Form No. 5A. Holding such manager alone liable would be in order, since he alone would fall within the meaning of the word "employer". Section 2(e) of the Act specifically provides that where the affairs of the establishment are entrusted to a manager, such person would be the employer. The petitioners herein cannot be roped in as accused through section 14A of the Act, given the unambiguous assertion in clause 11 of Form No. 5A that the eighth accused was the manager of the establishment, who was in charge of and responsible for the conduct thereof. Such assertion leads to the necessary exclusion of all others from such capacity, at least in so far as the present Act is concerned. For the above reasons, the criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in C. C. No. 177 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Gudalur, Nilgiris (District) are hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are quashed.
|