Allahabad HC Quashes Criminal Case Against Wipro Chairman Azim Premji Over Alleged Labour Law Violations

A bench of Justice Zafeer Ahmad granted relief to Premji in the alleged case of labour law violation, noting that no specific allegation had been levelled, indicating his direct involvement in the alleged violation or his active role in the day-to-day functioning of the establishment situated in Lucknow.

“…criminal liability cannot be fastened in a mechanical manner merely on the basis of designation unless the statute specifically provides for vicarious liability or there exist specific allegations demonstrating active role and responsibility of the accused in commission of the alleged offence,” the bench remarked.

The alleged violation of labour laws and statutory obligations occurred at Wipro's Lucknow office. Following this, a complaint was filed against Premji and others before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court in Lucknow.

Challenging the case proceedings, Premji's counsel argued in the HC that security services at Wipro's Lucknow office had been outsourced to G4S Secure Solutions India Private Limited.

It was submitted that this agency is an independent contractor and is solely responsible for the payment of wages, statutory dues, provident fund, ESI, and compliance with labour laws in respect of its employees.

It was contended that Premji had no administrative or managerial control over G4S, nor did he have any role in supervising its employees; he resides in Bengaluru and is not even involved in the daily operations of the Lucknow office.

It was strongly contended that no notice regarding the alleged violation was ever served upon the applicant or at any Wipro establishment. Furthermore, the complaint did not disclose any specific allegation or material showing active involvement or criminal intent against him.

AGA, on the other hand, opposed the prayer for quashing and submitted that the complaint discloses the commission of an offence and that the summoning order was rightly passed by the court below.

The single judge, however, agreed with the submissions of the applicant's counsel, noting that the applicant was sought to be prosecuted merely on account of his designation as Chairman and Managing Director of Wipro.

It noted that no specific allegation has been levelled in the complaint, indicating neither his direct involvement in the alleged violation nor his active role in the day-to-day functioning of the establishment situated in Lucknow.

Regarding the summoning order, the bench noted that the same was wholly cryptic and nonspeaking in nature and was passed in a proforma manner without any discussion of material available on record, satisfaction regarding the ingredients of the alleged offence or the role attributable to the present applicant.

Even the relevant statutory provisions under which cognizance has been taken have not been properly discussed in the impugned order, the bench observed.

“...summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the Magistrate is required to apply judicial mind to the facts of the case and material available on record before issuing process. The summoning order must reflect application of mind and satisfaction of the Court regarding existence of sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused,” the High Court noted as it found that the summoning order did not disclose any such satisfaction and appeared to have been passed mechanically.

It also noted that on a similar set of facts, a coordinate Bench of the High Court had already decided the matter in favour of the applicant.

Noting that the present case stood on the same footing, the Court said that the continuance of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

Against this backdrop, allowing the petition, the bench set aside the summoning order and quashed the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.