LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER Vs. ABDUL KHADER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the judgment in STC No. 147 of 1982 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod.

(2.) The accused was a railway contractor and he entered into a contract with the railway in respect of the work of earth cutting for laying additional railway lines at Kasargod Railway Station which according to the prosecution was a scheduled employer within the meaning of S.2(g) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The prosecution allegation is that the accused did not display notice showing the minimum rates of wages and failed to maintain Muster roll of the workers at the spot and to maintain register of wages and also failed to issue wages slips to workers and thereby committed offence under R.26(1), (2), (5), 21(4) and 25(2) of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950.

(3.) On the side of the prosecution three witnesses were examined and Exts. P1 to 10 ware marked. The accused contended that he had maintained necessary registers and muster roll in his office at Mangalore. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the Magistrate was competent to take cognizance under S.22(B) of the Minimum Wages Act when the sanction was granted more than one month prior to the filing of the complaint. S.22B of Minimum Wages Act reads as follows: