CAMBAY MUNICIPALITY Vs. VIJAYKUMAR RASIKLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cambay Municipality and its Inspector for shops and establishments have filed this petition under the following circumstances.

(2.) Respondents Nos. 1 to 49 are owning and operating powerlooms in the city of Khambhat. They have been employing workmen on piecerate basis. Petitioner No. 2 inspected the premises where these powerlooms are situate and found that respondents Nos. 1 to 49 had not been paying to their workmen for the weekly rest day under sec. 18 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act 1948 Petitioner No. 2 therefore filed 2227 complaints against 49 powerloom owners in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at KhambhatThe learned Magistrate held in all those cases by a common order that sec. 18 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act 1948 (Bombay Act No. LXXIX of 1948) was repugnant to sec. 13 of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 and was therefore void. He therefore dropped all the complaints under sec. 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 This common order recorded by the learned Magistrate in 2227 complaints has been challenged by the petitioners in this petition.

(3.) Miss Shah who appears on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 49 except respondent No. 32 has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition. According to her one petition against orders recorded in 2227 complaints though it may be a common order is not maintainable. It appears from the record that the learned Magistrate recorded his finding in favour of the accused in 2227 complaints and directed that one copy of his order shall be placed on record in each one of those complaints. In law the preliminary objection raised by Miss Shah is wellfounded 2227 orders though identical in character cannot be challenged in one petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The correct procedure is that the petitioners must file in order to 8et rid of them 2227 petitions and pay Courtfees in all of them. In view of this situation which developed on account of the preliminary objection raised by Miss Shah Mr. Zaveri who appears on behalf of the petitioners asked us to decide this petition as if it is directed against the order in any one case and exercise our suo motu jurisdiction under sec. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a situation of this type ordinarily there are three courses open and whichever suits the situation better can be adopted. The first course is that the petition is heard against one order recorded in one criminal case and the challenge to the order recorded in the rest of the cases is dropped. Mr. Zaveri did not agree to this course. The second course which is open is that the petitioners pay Courtfees in this petition on the basis that there are 2227 petitions and to treat this petition against the order recorded in each one of those complaints. Adoption of this course would have amounted to the petitioners paying more than Rs. 44 0 by way of Courtfees. Mr. Zaveri did not agree to this course also.