Vicarious Liability

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

Girdhari Lal Gupta v. D.H. Mehta, (1971) 3 SCC 189; State of Karnataka v. Pratap Chand, (1981) 2 SCC 335; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, (1983) 1 SCC 1; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Purshotam Dass Jhunjunwala, (1983) 1 SCC 9; National Small Industries Corporation Limited v. Harmeet Singh Paintal, (2010) 3 SCC 330.

It is crystal clear, complaint does not satisfy mandate of Sub-Section (1) to Section 22C of The Minimum Wages Act, 1948. There are no assertions or averments, Dayle De’Souza was ‘in-charge of’ and ‘responsible to’ M/s. Writer Safeguard Pvt. Ltd. in manner as interpreted in cases mentioned above. M/s. Writer Safeguard Pvt. Ltd. has also not been made an accused or even summoned. Thus, Dayle De’Souza cannot be prosecuted.

A vicarious liability under Sub-Section (2) to Section 22C can arise. It is attracted when offence is committed with ‘consent’, ‘connivance’, or is attributable to ‘neglect’.  Notably, in absence of any specific averment, one cannot rely on Section 22C(2).

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Dayle De’Souza v. Government of India, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3913 of 2020].

'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.