The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings and summons issued against Wipro chairman Azim Premji and senior company officials in an alleged labour law violation case linked to the company’s Ghaziabad office, while allowing their petition challenging the prosecution proceedings.
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against Azim Premji and other senior officials of Wipro in connection with alleged violations of labour laws at the company’s Ghaziabad office.
The High Court also set aside the summons order issued earlier by a magistrate court against Premji and other company executives. The order was passed by Justice Jafeer Ahmad while allowing a petition filed by the Wipro chairman and other officials challenging the criminal proceedings.
The matter arose from a complaint lodged by the labour department alleging non-compliance with certain labour law requirements at Wipro’s office in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Acting on the complaint, a local magistrate court had issued summons to Azim Premji and other officials, following which they approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings.
During the hearing, the petitioners argued that the complaint lacked any specific allegation showing direct involvement of the company chairman or senior officials in the alleged violations. It was contended that the criminal proceedings had been initiated mechanically without examining whether the accused persons were responsible for the day-to-day management or implementation of labour law compliances at the establishment.
After examining the records, the High Court observed that in cases involving technical or procedural violations of labour laws, senior corporate executives cannot automatically be held criminally liable merely because of their designation in the company.
The Court noted that there must be clear and specific allegations demonstrating the active role or direct responsibility of such officials in the alleged violations before criminal prosecution can be sustained against them.
According to the order, the complaint filed by the labour department did not disclose how Azim Premji, in his capacity as chairman of the company, was connected with the day-to-day functioning of the Ghaziabad office or with ensuring compliance with labour regulations.
The Court further found that the magistrate had failed to properly examine the factual background and legal requirements before issuing summons against the accused persons.
Observing that criminal liability cannot be imposed in a routine manner on top-level corporate officials without adequate material, the High Court concluded that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.
The Court, therefore, quashed the criminal complaint as well as the summons order issued by the magistrate court against Premji and the other company officials.
The ruling reiterates the legal principle that vicarious criminal liability of company directors and senior executives can arise only when the complaint specifically establishes their direct involvement, consent, negligence or responsibility in relation to the alleged offence.
The judgment is also significant in the context of corporate prosecutions under labour and regulatory laws, where courts have repeatedly emphasised that mere designation or position in a company is not sufficient to attract criminal liability unless supported by specific allegations and evidence.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE