STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. STHANAKVASI JAIN MOTA SANGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of importance that arises for consideration in these two acquittal appeals is "whether the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder, viz., Gujarat Minimum Wages Rules, 1961 (for short 'the Rules') are applicable to any philanthrophic institutions like the one in the instant case carrying on exclusively charitable activities of distributing the foodgrains through a fair price shop run by it to fellow members of the community and that too at cheaper rates without any profit motive"?

(2.) To briefly summarise the prosecution case, Mr. S. R. Bodat, Minimum Wages Inspector, Rajkot, on 30-10-1980 visited the fair price shop run by Sthanakvasi Jain Mota Sangh (for short accused No. 1-Sangh) situated at 9, Diwanpara, Rajkot. At that time, Shri J. M. Doshit, President of the said accused No. 1-Sangh (for short-accused No. 2) was present. On making on the spot inspection, it was found out that the accused No. 1-Sangh had contravened certain provisions under the Rules -to mention few of them such as of (i) Not displaying notice containing the minimum rates of wages fixed together with the abstracts from the Act and the Rules made thereunder and names and addresses of the Inspector etc. etc. under Rule 22; (ii) Extra wages for over-time not paid under Rule 25(1); (iii) Not maintaining a register showing over-time payments under Rule 25(2); (iv) Not maintaining a register of wages under Rule 26(1); (v) Not issuing wages slips to its workers under Rule 26(2); (vi) Not maintaining inspection-book under Rule 26A; and (vii) Not providing card in Form No. V-A to employees under Rule 26B -which are offences under Sec. 18 punishable under Sec. 22 of the Act. On making further inquiries from the pay-register, it was found out that two of its employees, viz., (i) Dhirajlal Dharshi who was preparing the bills and (ii) Chandulal Nyalchand who was Tolat, i.e., Weighman were paid less than the minimum wages due. Dhirajlal Dharshi was paid Rs. 240/ - p.m. instead of Rs. 300.00 p. m. while Chandulal Nyalchand was paid Rs. 155/-p. m. instead of Rs. 250.00 p. m. Now each of the aforesaid contraventions noticed by the Minimum Wages Inspector were immediately noted down by him in the inspection note at Ex. 8, a copy of which was handed over to the accused No. 2. The record also further discloses that the accused No. 2 had submitted his reply dated 20-11-1981 qua the inspection note Ex. 8 dated 30-10-1980, pointing out that no part of the accused No. 1-Sangh was registered under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 (For short 'S and E Act') and therefore the Act and the Rules made thereunder were not applicable to them. On the basis of these facts, Mr. Bodat, Minimum Wages Inspector filed a complaint on 24-11-1981 before the learned J. M. F. C. at Rajkot against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences alleged above, which came to be registered as Criminal Cases Nos. 1139 of 1981 and 1140 of 1981.

(3.) At trial, both accused denying their guilt challenged very prosecution on the ground that the Act and the Rules made thereunder were not applicable to them as the fair price shop run by accused No. 1-Sangh was neither a 'shop' nor a 'commercial establishment' within the definition meaning of the provisions of S and E Act. It was further contended by the accused that no other units of the accused No. 1-Sangh were registered under the S & E Act.