There is provision that only inspector can fill complaint against employer under M.T.W.Act 1961 but said inspector is not filing complaint against employer , what to do?
From India, Kolhapur
From India, Kolhapur
1. Sir, whether to prosecute any employer for offences under any of the labour laws is the discretion of the authority created under relevant labour laws. The competent authorities generally donot file prosecution case against defaulting employer if he is not a habitual defaulter. However, in serious cases prosecution can be filed, but it entirely depend upon the policy of the department. To file prosecution cases against employers for each and every case of default is not possible.
2. If you have any grievance or claim pending against any employer, you can refer the matter to appropriate authorities as created under the Act which you have referred in your thread as above. However, I will request you to elaborate as to what is the full meaning of "M.T.W.Act,1961" ?
From India, Noida
9232. If you have any grievance or claim pending against any employer, you can refer the matter to appropriate authorities as created under the Act which you have referred in your thread as above. However, I will request you to elaborate as to what is the full meaning of "M.T.W.Act,1961" ?
From India, Noida
Dear Harsh Kumar ji,
MTW Act means Motor Transport Workers Act 1961.
In addition to what you said I would say the the queriest has full right to make compliant against the Inspector with evidence to the appropriate authority about not taking any action against the employer by him on his grievances or issues.
Before exercising the right by the queriest, I advise him to collect the information under RTI on what action is taken by the inspector on his issues.
From India, Mumbai
MTW Act means Motor Transport Workers Act 1961.
In addition to what you said I would say the the queriest has full right to make compliant against the Inspector with evidence to the appropriate authority about not taking any action against the employer by him on his grievances or issues.
Before exercising the right by the queriest, I advise him to collect the information under RTI on what action is taken by the inspector on his issues.
From India, Mumbai
IN THIS REGARD WISH TO SAY ONE THING - FOR BUILD UP COMPLIANT AGAINST THE EMPLOYER THE INSPECTORS NEEDS PERFECT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND TO RECEIVE COMPLIANT FROM EMPLOYEES. UNLESS PROPER INVESTIGATION NO AUTHORITY CAN TAKE ACTION AGAINST ANY ONE UNDER THE LAW.
From India, Visakhapatnam
From India, Visakhapatnam
Under section 35 of the MTW Act, 1961, either the inspector or with his previous sanction, one can file complaint for prosecution of erring person. So collect relevant evidence and write to authorities to give sanction to file complaint.
From India, New Delhi
From India, New Delhi
I was look all replay but may i unknown about it that, public servent disobaying law, then you says that you may make complaintfor there superior officer then he is also public servent each and every officers are public servents and then those are protected u/s 197 of Crpc what to do.
From India, Kolhapur
From India, Kolhapur
Extract of 197 CRPC
Section 197 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.
(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government: 1 Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression" State Government" occurring therein, the expression" Central Government" were substituted.
9.3 As laid down by the Supreme Court, a public servant can be said to act or purport to act in the discharge of his official duty, if his act is such as to lie within the scope of his official duty. A judge neither acts nor purports to act as a Judge in receiving a bribe though the judgment which he delivers may be such an act; nor does a Government Medical Officer act or purport to act as a public servant in picking the pocket of a patient whom he is examining though the examination itself may be such an act. The acid test is as to whether the public servant can reasonably be inferred to have acted by virtue of his office. What is important is the quality of the act. The question whether an offence was committed in the course of official duty or under colour of office depends on the facts of each case (Baijnath vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 220: 1966 Crl.L.J. 179 (SC); S.B. Saha vs. M.S. Kochar, AIR 1979 SC 1841:1979 Crl.L.J. 1367 (S.C.)). The Supreme Court held, in the case of R. Balakrishna Pillai vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1996 SC 901, where the accused, Minister of Electricity, Government of Kerala, is alleged to have supplied certain Units of electricity without the consent of the Government, that the alleged criminal conspiracy has direct nexus with discharge of his official duties and that as such sanction is required for his prosecution under sec. 197 Cr.P.C.
Refer this link also:Public servants can be prosecuted without prior sanction: SC - timesofindia-economictimes
Point here I wish to make is if the Inspector is doing wrong things and there is evidence,all a citizen can do is to put it in black and white to the department concerned.
And further if department fails to act, a court can be moved by complainant.
From India, Pune
Section 197 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.
(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government: 1 Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression" State Government" occurring therein, the expression" Central Government" were substituted.
9.3 As laid down by the Supreme Court, a public servant can be said to act or purport to act in the discharge of his official duty, if his act is such as to lie within the scope of his official duty. A judge neither acts nor purports to act as a Judge in receiving a bribe though the judgment which he delivers may be such an act; nor does a Government Medical Officer act or purport to act as a public servant in picking the pocket of a patient whom he is examining though the examination itself may be such an act. The acid test is as to whether the public servant can reasonably be inferred to have acted by virtue of his office. What is important is the quality of the act. The question whether an offence was committed in the course of official duty or under colour of office depends on the facts of each case (Baijnath vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 220: 1966 Crl.L.J. 179 (SC); S.B. Saha vs. M.S. Kochar, AIR 1979 SC 1841:1979 Crl.L.J. 1367 (S.C.)). The Supreme Court held, in the case of R. Balakrishna Pillai vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1996 SC 901, where the accused, Minister of Electricity, Government of Kerala, is alleged to have supplied certain Units of electricity without the consent of the Government, that the alleged criminal conspiracy has direct nexus with discharge of his official duties and that as such sanction is required for his prosecution under sec. 197 Cr.P.C.
Refer this link also:Public servants can be prosecuted without prior sanction: SC - timesofindia-economictimes
Point here I wish to make is if the Inspector is doing wrong things and there is evidence,all a citizen can do is to put it in black and white to the department concerned.
And further if department fails to act, a court can be moved by complainant.
From India, Pune
I read all threads , it is unable to understand that if public servents not following his office procidure then can he come to ambit of sec 166 of i.p.c. and there are not necessarry to get sanction by government?
From India, Kolhapur
From India, Kolhapur
1. Sir, Public Servants as defined in various enactments are having immunity from various actions they have committed or omitted to act in furtherance of their official duties. Such immunity is also necessary so that public servants can function in their sphere of work or duties without any fear or favour. Therefore, as mentioned by Sh. Nath Rao ji in his remarks as above it is essential that the person who want to file any prosecution against a public servant must obtain prior sanction from the Central Govt or State Govt. as the case may be.
2. Therefore, if you want to pursue any such case, you may firstly decide the competent authority/Govt. who is vested with the powers to sanction such permission and apply to such authority with complete facts of the case. No court will take any cognizance of any complaint filed without complying with the procedure as laid down in Cr.P.C./IPC as above. Had there been no such immunity or protection for public servants, some of the public servants must be found sitting in courts attending their prosecution cases, thus resulting into loss of public work in their respective office.
3. I have already submitted in my earlier remarks that whether to file a complaint or not in any case is not the discretion of any Inspector, it is the discretion of the authority vested such powers in any enactments. If you have any grudge for non-prosecution of any employer or any defaulter under any Act, you can approach such authority with complete facts of the facts.
From India, Noida
2. Therefore, if you want to pursue any such case, you may firstly decide the competent authority/Govt. who is vested with the powers to sanction such permission and apply to such authority with complete facts of the case. No court will take any cognizance of any complaint filed without complying with the procedure as laid down in Cr.P.C./IPC as above. Had there been no such immunity or protection for public servants, some of the public servants must be found sitting in courts attending their prosecution cases, thus resulting into loss of public work in their respective office.
3. I have already submitted in my earlier remarks that whether to file a complaint or not in any case is not the discretion of any Inspector, it is the discretion of the authority vested such powers in any enactments. If you have any grudge for non-prosecution of any employer or any defaulter under any Act, you can approach such authority with complete facts of the facts.
From India, Noida
Dear Vinit ji,
I read your original post again. Your query what I understood is whether complaint can be filed against employer under the M.T.W.Act 1961 by an individual when Inspector under the Act is not taking any action against him or only the Inspector has to file a complaint.
No Act prevents you from making any complaint against employer. You can make complaint of employer to respective authority in writing and demand for necessary action against him. You can also file a complaint against employer in respective court depending upon the matter.
No Act prevents you from making any complaint against any Government Servant or Public Officer to his department or to the respective Government and demand action against him after inquiry in to the complaint. However prosecuting him, there is a need of prior sanction.
IPC 166 speaks about offence by public servant and punishment.
From India, Mumbai
I read your original post again. Your query what I understood is whether complaint can be filed against employer under the M.T.W.Act 1961 by an individual when Inspector under the Act is not taking any action against him or only the Inspector has to file a complaint.
No Act prevents you from making any complaint against employer. You can make complaint of employer to respective authority in writing and demand for necessary action against him. You can also file a complaint against employer in respective court depending upon the matter.
No Act prevents you from making any complaint against any Government Servant or Public Officer to his department or to the respective Government and demand action against him after inquiry in to the complaint. However prosecuting him, there is a need of prior sanction.
IPC 166 speaks about offence by public servant and punishment.
From India, Mumbai
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Bahrain labour law 2012 - 15052013.pdf
Emergence of Labour Law.doc