The Court was hearing an application filed by Premji under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking quashing of proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Lucknow.
He also challenged the summoning order dated February 8, 2017.
Premji’s counsel argued that he had no role in the day-to-day functioning of Wipro’s Lucknow office.
Premji further argued that he did not exercise administrative or managerial control over G4S or supervise its employees.
The State opposed the plea and argued that the complaint disclosed commission of an offence and that the summoning order had been rightly passed.
The Court was hearing an application filed by Premji under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking quashing of proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Lucknow. He also challenged the summoning order dated February 8, 2017.
Premji’s counsel argued that he had no role in the day-to-day functioning of Wipro’s Lucknow office. It was submitted that the security services at the establishment had been outsourced to G4S Secure Solutions India Private Limited under an agreement dated March 18, 2015.
Under this agreement, G4S was an independent contractor and was solely responsible for payment of wages, statutory dues, provident fund, ESI and compliance with labour laws for its employees, the Court was told.
Premji further argued that he did not exercise administrative or managerial control over G4S or supervise its employees. He was residing in Bengaluru and was not involved in the daily operations of the Lucknow office.
It was also submitted that no notice regarding the alleged violation was served on him or any Wipro establishment, and that he came to know about the proceedings only after bailable warrants were issued.
The State opposed the plea and argued that the complaint disclosed commission of an offence and that the summoning order had been rightly passed.
