STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MOHANLAL DEVICHAND SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals by certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay against its judgment, dated February 4, 1963, in Criminal Appeals Nos. 779 and 780 of 1962. By this judgment the High Court affirmed the order of acquittal passed against the respondent by the Judicial Magistrate, First class, Vadagaon (Mawal).

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows:The labour Inspector (Central), Bombay-1, appointed under the Minimum Wages Act (XI of 1948) hereinafter called the Act by the Central Government filed two complaints in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate alleging that the respondent had contravened certain provisions of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950. It was alleged that the respondent was doing quarrying operation work in quarry survey No. 23 (1) Kusegaon village near Lonavala, and while carrying on this quarrying operation work, he failed to observe certain provisions in the Rules. The respondent submitted a written statement admitting the facts but he contended, inter alia, that the Inspector was not authorised to file the complaint and it was only an inspector appointed by the Maharashtra State who was competent to file a complaint. The Judicial Magistrate, treating this as a preliminary objection came to the conclusion that the Inspector was not entitled to file the complaint. According to him, the word "mine" in sub-cl:(I) of S. 2 (b) of the Act does not include a stone quarry and, therefore, the appropriate Government was the State government and not the Central Government. Thereupon he acquitted the accused of the offence under S. 22A, read with S. 18 of the Act and for contravening certain rules of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules. 1950.

(3.) The State then filed two appeals before the High Court. The High Court also came to the conclusion that the Inspector was not competent to file the complaints but the reasoning of the High Court was different. It was of the opinion that "a stone quarry can fall within the category of a mine as defined in the Mines Act of 1952 or the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act of 1957." But even so, according to it, "the Schedule does not mention either a mine or a stone quarry and item No. 8, viz., Employment in stone breaking and stone crushing, cannot, therefore, be said to be an employment in respect of a mine whether in its broadcast sense so as to include a stone quarry or in the narrow sense as given in the Oxford English Dictionary." The High Court further held that "unless, therefore, the Parliament amends item No. 8 of the Schedule so as to include the operation of stone-breaking and stone-crushing in a stone quarry or in all mines including a stone quarry it is not possible to hold that the appropriate Government would be the Central Government, merely on the basis that, in its widest connotation, the words 'stone quarry' may fall within the ambit of the word 'mine'."