Home  /  Code on Wages, 2019  /  Section 63

Section 63: Power of Central Government to give directions

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

Statutory Mandate
Chapter IX: Miscellaneous
Competent Labour Forum
Act No. 29 of 2019
Section 62 All 67 Sections of Code on Wages, 2019 Section 64

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 63

Section 63 of the Code on Wages, 2019 establishes the 'actual offender' procedure (adapted from Section 101 of the Factories Act, 1948), enabling an employer charged with an offense under the Code to bring the actual offender before the court, discharge their own liability upon proving due diligence and absence of knowledge/connivance, and secure the conviction of the true culprit.

  • The 'Actual Offender' Complaint Mechanism: When an employer is charged with an offense under the Code, they are entitled, upon filing a formal complaint and giving at least three clear days' written notice to the prosecutor, to have any other person (e.g., an errant manager, payroll supervisor, or contractor) whom they charge as the actual offender brought before the court during the trial.
  • Twofold Burden of Proof on Employer: To secure an exemption and discharge, the employer must prove two cumulative conditions to the court's satisfaction: (a) that they used all due diligence to enforce the execution of the Code, and (b) that the other person committed the offense without their knowledge, consent, or connivance.
  • Conviction of the Actual Offender and Discharge of Employer: If the commission of the offense is proved and the employer discharges their dual burden, the court convicts the actual offender and formally discharges the employer from all criminal liabilities.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factories (1996) 6 SCC 665: The Supreme Court analyzed the analogous actual offender procedure under Section 101 of the Factories Act, holding that the employer/occupier remains prima facie responsible until they prove due diligence and establish that the manager acted clandestinely without corporate consent.
  • State of Gujarat v. Kansara Manilal Bhikhalal AIR 1964 SC 1893: The Supreme Court held that the defense of due diligence requires concrete evidence of active supervision and compliance systems; mere passive ignorance or disinterest does not suffice to shift criminal liability.
  • Girraj Prasad v. State of Rajasthan (1987) Supp SCC 520: The Supreme Court held that procedural requirements, including the mandatory 3-day notice to the prosecutor, must be strictly observed to invoke statutory exemption provisions.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Corporate employers facing prosecution for an isolated wage default caused by an unauthorized or fraudulent act of a branch manager or rogue payroll clerk must act swiftly. Counsel must prepare a formal complaint against the actual offender, serve the 3-day statutory notice upon the labor prosecutor, and produce internal compliance manuals, audit trails, and disciplinary proceedings against the employee to discharge the Section 63 due diligence burden.

Section 62 All 67 Sections of Code on Wages, 2019 Section 64