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
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
From India, Kolhapur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
1. Sir, whether to prosecute any employer for offenses under any of the labor laws is at the discretion of the authority created under relevant labor laws. The competent authorities generally do not file prosecution cases against a defaulting employer if he is not a habitual defaulter. However, in serious cases, prosecution can be filed, but it entirely depends upon the policy of the department. Filing 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 the appropriate authorities as created under the Act which you have referred to in your thread as above. However, I request you to elaborate on the full meaning of "M.T.W. Act, 1961"?
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(2)
Amend(0)
9442. If you have any grievance or claim pending against any employer, you can refer the matter to the appropriate authorities as created under the Act which you have referred to in your thread as above. However, I request you to elaborate on the full meaning of "M.T.W. Act, 1961"?
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
Dear Harsh Kumar ji, The MTW Act refers to the Motor Transport Workers Act of 1961. In addition to your points, I would like to emphasize that the inquirer has the full right to lodge a complaint against the inspector with evidence to the appropriate authority if no action is taken by the inspector against the employer regarding the grievances or issues raised.
Recommendation for Inquirers
Before the inquirer exercises this right, I recommend that they gather information through the Right to Information (RTI) process to understand what actions have been taken by the inspector regarding their concerns.
Regards
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
Recommendation for Inquirers
Before the inquirer exercises this right, I recommend that they gather information through the Right to Information (RTI) process to understand what actions have been taken by the inspector regarding their concerns.
Regards
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
In this regard, I wish to say one thing: for building up a complaint against the employer, the inspectors need perfect documentary evidence and to receive complaints from employees. Unless a proper investigation is conducted, no authority can take action against anyone under the law.
From India, Visakhapatnam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Visakhapatnam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Filing a Complaint Under Section 35 of the MTW Act, 1961
Under Section 35 of the MTW Act, 1961, either the inspector or, with his previous sanction, one can file a complaint for the prosecution of an erring person. Therefore, collect relevant evidence and write to the authorities to request sanction to file the complaint.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Under Section 35 of the MTW Act, 1961, either the inspector or, with his previous sanction, one can file a complaint for the prosecution of an erring person. Therefore, collect relevant evidence and write to the authorities to request sanction to file the complaint.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I was looking for all replies, but I am unsure about what to do in a situation where a public servant is disobeying the law. In such a case, you can file a complaint against their superior officer, who is also a public servant. All officers are considered public servants and are protected under section 197 of the CrPC. What should be the next course of action?
From India, Kolhapur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Kolhapur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have been looking through all the replies, but I am still unclear about this: if a public servant disobeys the law, then you mention that one can file a complaint against their superior officer. However, since the superior officer is also a public servant, and every officer is considered a public servant, they are protected under Section 197 of the CrPC. What should be done in such a situation?
Extract of Section 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 offense 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 offense 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 offense 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 offense employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government: Provided that where the alleged offense 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.
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 of whether an offense was committed in the course of official duty or under color 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 a direct nexus with the discharge of his official duties and that as such sanction is required for his prosecution under sec. 197 Cr.P.C.
Refer to this link also: http://articles.economictimes.indiat...rpc-apex-court
The point I wish to make here is that if an Inspector is engaging in wrongful activities and there is evidence, all a citizen can do is to report it in writing to the relevant department. Furthermore, if the department fails to take action, the complainant can approach the court.
Regards
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Extract of Section 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 offense 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 offense 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 offense 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 offense employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government: Provided that where the alleged offense 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.
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 of whether an offense was committed in the course of official duty or under color 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 a direct nexus with the discharge of his official duties and that as such sanction is required for his prosecution under sec. 197 Cr.P.C.
Refer to this link also: http://articles.economictimes.indiat...rpc-apex-court
The point I wish to make here is that if an Inspector is engaging in wrongful activities and there is evidence, all a citizen can do is to report it in writing to the relevant department. Furthermore, if the department fails to take action, the complainant can approach the court.
Regards
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I read all threads. It is difficult to understand if public servants are not following their office procedures, can they come under the ambit of Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)? Is it necessary to obtain sanction from the government?
From India, Kolhapur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Kolhapur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Immunity of Public Servants
Public servants, as defined in various enactments, have immunity from various actions they have committed or omitted in furtherance of their official duties. Such immunity is necessary so that public servants can function in their sphere of work or duties without any fear or favor. Therefore, as mentioned by Sh. Nath Rao Ji in his remarks above, it is essential that the person who wants to file any prosecution against a public servant must obtain prior sanction from the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be.
Steps to File a Complaint Against a Public Servant
If you want to pursue any such case, you should first decide the competent authority or Government vested with the power to sanction such permission and apply to that authority with complete facts of the case. No court will take cognizance of any complaint filed without complying with the procedures laid down in Cr.P.C./IPC as mentioned above. If there were no such immunity or protection for public servants, some of them would be found sitting in courts attending their prosecution cases, resulting in a loss of public work in their respective offices.
Authority and Discretion in Filing Complaints
I have already mentioned in my earlier remarks that whether to file a complaint or not in any case is not at the discretion of any inspector; it is at the discretion of the authority vested with such powers in any enactments. If you have any grievances regarding the non-prosecution of any employer or defaulter under any Act, you can approach the relevant authority with complete facts of the case.
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Public servants, as defined in various enactments, have immunity from various actions they have committed or omitted in furtherance of their official duties. Such immunity is necessary so that public servants can function in their sphere of work or duties without any fear or favor. Therefore, as mentioned by Sh. Nath Rao Ji in his remarks above, it is essential that the person who wants to file any prosecution against a public servant must obtain prior sanction from the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be.
Steps to File a Complaint Against a Public Servant
If you want to pursue any such case, you should first decide the competent authority or Government vested with the power to sanction such permission and apply to that authority with complete facts of the case. No court will take cognizance of any complaint filed without complying with the procedures laid down in Cr.P.C./IPC as mentioned above. If there were no such immunity or protection for public servants, some of them would be found sitting in courts attending their prosecution cases, resulting in a loss of public work in their respective offices.
Authority and Discretion in Filing Complaints
I have already mentioned in my earlier remarks that whether to file a complaint or not in any case is not at the discretion of any inspector; it is at the discretion of the authority vested with such powers in any enactments. If you have any grievances regarding the non-prosecution of any employer or defaulter under any Act, you can approach the relevant authority with complete facts of the case.
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I read your original post again. Your query, as I understood it, is whether a complaint can be filed against an employer under the M.T.W. Act 1961 by an individual when the Inspector under the Act is not taking any action, or if only the Inspector has to file a complaint.
No Act prevents you from making a complaint against the employer. You can make a complaint against the employer to the respective authority in writing and demand necessary action. You can also file a complaint against the employer in the respective court depending on the matter.
No Act prevents you from making a complaint against any Government Servant or Public Officer to his department or the respective Government and demand action after an inquiry into the complaint. However, to prosecute him, there is a need for prior sanction.
IPC 166 speaks about the offense by a public servant and punishment.
Regards
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
No Act prevents you from making a complaint against the employer. You can make a complaint against the employer to the respective authority in writing and demand necessary action. You can also file a complaint against the employer in the respective court depending on the matter.
No Act prevents you from making a complaint against any Government Servant or Public Officer to his department or the respective Government and demand action after an inquiry into the complaint. However, to prosecute him, there is a need for prior sanction.
IPC 166 speaks about the offense by a public servant and punishment.
Regards
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Maternity Benefit act 1961.ppt
SELF-CERTIFICAT E PROFORMA UNNDER METERNITY BENEFIT ACT 1961.doc
Shops & Establishment Act 1961 - Karanataka.pdf