Home  /  Code on Wages, 2019  /  Section 52

Section 52: Web-based inspection schedule

The Code on Wages, 2019 (Act No. 29 of 2019) • Official Statutory Text & Plain English Practice Guide

Statutory Mandate
Chapter VII: Inspector-cum-Facilitator
Competent Labour Forum
Act No. 29 of 2019
Section 51 All 67 Sections of Code on Wages, 2019 Section 53

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 52

Section 52 of the Code on Wages, 2019 governs the judicial threshold for prosecuting violations of the Code, establishing that no court shall take cognizance of an offense except upon a formal complaint filed by the appropriate Government, an authorized officer, an aggrieved employee, a registered Trade Union, or an Inspector-cum-Facilitator, and restricting trial jurisdiction exclusively to Judicial Magistrates First Class or Metropolitan Magistrates.

  • Restricted Locus Standi for Criminal Complaint: Unlike general criminal law where any citizen can initiate prosecution, Section 52 restricts the right to file a complaint to five enumerated entities: (i) the appropriate Government; (ii) an officer authorized by it; (iii) the aggrieved employee; (iv) a registered Trade Union; or (v) the Inspector-cum-Facilitator. This eliminates vexatious third-party public interest litigation in wage disputes.
  • Exclusive Jurisdictional Threshold: JMFC or Metropolitan Magistrate: No court inferior to a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (JMFC) possesses jurisdiction to try any offense under the Code. Trials before Executive Magistrates or lower courts are coram non judice and void.
  • Mandatory Written Complaint in Lieu of Police FIR: Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated via a police First Information Report (FIR) or general police investigation for offenses under Chapter VIII; they must originate strictly through a written complaint presented to the competent Magistrate.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak (1984) 2 SCC 500: Landmark Constitution Bench decision on statutory locus standi; held that where a statute creates a specific mechanism and restricts locus standi for launching prosecution, its provisions must be strictly adhered to.
  • State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi (1972) 2 SCC 890: The Supreme Court examined continuing offenses under labor statutes, holding that failure to file statutory returns constitutes a continuing wrong, impacting the commencement of the limitation period for taking cognizance under the CrPC.
  • National Small Industries Corp. Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2009) 1 SCC 407: The Supreme Court reiterated that criminal complaints filed by public servants or statutory inspectors in the discharge of official duties enjoy procedural exemptions under Section 200 CrPC regarding pre-cognizance examination.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Employers facing criminal summonses must scrutinize the complaint's locus standi immediately. If filed by an unregistered union or an unauthorized individual, an application for rejection of complaint or a quashing petition under Section 482 of the CrPC / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) should be filed before the High Court. Aggrieved employees and registered trade unions should ensure their complaints contain all necessary authorizations and registration certificates to withstand preliminary technical challenges.

Section 51 All 67 Sections of Code on Wages, 2019 Section 53