HC stays proceedings in TN court against Ness Wadia

In a relief to industrialist Ness Wadia, the Madras High Court today stayed further proceedings on two criminal complaints pending in a magistrate court with regard to a tea estate in Nilgiris district in Tamil Nadu.
Granting the interim orders on two petitions by Wadia, Justice M S Ramesh also dispensed with his personal appearance before the chief judicial magistrate court in Udhagamandalam.
He posted the matter toApril 4for further hearing.
The criminal complaints pertain to alleged violation of certain provisions of the Factories Act and Rules and failure to inform the authorities about changes in the management of the company owning the tea estate.

Wadia, managing director of the Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Limited, submitted that he was inducted as the managing director of Dunsandle Tea Estate in 2016.
The change in the management was duly notified to the deputy director of the Industrial Safety and Health concerned through an August 30, 2016 communication.

On July 13, 2017, the deputy director conducted an inspection in the tea factory to ensure compliance of statutory provisions.
The deputy director issued a show cause notice on August 28, 2017 along with the inspection report stating that the petitioner had violated certain provisions of the Factories Act and Rules.

It was alleged that company has failed to intimate the change of management to the authorities concerned, and has also breached provisions of the Factories Act, including failure to ensure safety measures to workmen operating machines in the factory.
Wadia submitted that in response to the notice, the company and him had submitted separate replies to the authorities on September 5, 2017.
Subsequently, two separate criminal complaints were filed by the deputy director against the petitioner in November last year in the Udhagamandalam court.
Claiming that the complaint was ex-facie barred by law and in contrary to the settled law established by various decisions of high court, the petitioner moved the present pleas seeking to quash the proceeding before the trial court.