STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. M P UDHYOG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeals have been filed under Sec. 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case Nos. 12445/86 and 12446/86, by which the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has acquitted the respondent -original accused.

(2.) THE respondent -original accused have been charged with offences under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A complaint was lodged by the Labour and Minimum Wages Inspector, under the Act, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 1725 and 1726 of 1985 (which have been re -numbered as Criminal Case Nos. 12445/86 and 12446/86) for the alleged violation of the Act. It made an order for proceeding in both the cases and the plea of the accused were recorded in the Metropolitan Court and the trial proceeded as a summary trial under Chapter XXI of Cr.P.C. and after recording the evidence, pronounced the impugned judgment and order dated 30.9.1986 acquitting the accused of the charges for violation of the Act. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate has recorded the evidence of the witnesses and also noticed that some of the records like overtime register, salary statement, etc. are not produced and also visit book was not produced. Therefore, Mr. Bhavsar, Labour and Minimum Wages Inspector, was summoned and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, referring to his deposition at Exh.3, discussed the aspects as to whether the industry run by the accused persons could be covered as scheduled industry and also whether provisions of the Act would be attracted. Therefore, relying upon the deposition of the complainant, Mr. Bhavsar, Labour and Minimum Wages Inspector, the court has clearly observed and discussed the evidence of Mr. Bhavsar, Labour and Minimum Wages Inspector, that he has not been able to specifically say whether 100 employees were working or less than 100 employees were working. In his Examination -in -chief he stated that when he visited there were 42 employees/workers he had found working there and some registers were not produced. However, in the cross -examination he has admitted that when he visited the place for inspection he found 100 workers working there and, therefore, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has observed that if 100 workers were working, such an establishment or industry would not be covered under the scheduled industry, relying upon the deposition of Mr. Bhavsar, Labour and Minimum Wages Inspector, himself. Therefore, on consideration and appreciation of the evidence, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has acquitted the accused persons by the impugned judgment and order dated 30.9.1986.

(3.) IT is this judgment which has been challenged by the appellant -State herein on the ground mainly stated, inter alia, in the Memo of Appeal that the registers, as required under the Act and the Rules made thereunder, were not either maintained or shown. Further, it has been contended that as per the evidence of Mr. Bhavsar, Labour and Minimum Wages Inspector, there were only 42 workers working in the factory, which the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has failed to appreciate and he has erred in misreading the cross -examination of Mr. Bhavsar, Labour and Minimum Wages Inspector, wherein he is said to have stated that a contractor was also working and taking into consideration the employees of the contractor, there were 100 employees. It has been specifically contended that the contractor is a separate establishment and, therefore, it could not have been included. Therefore, it has been contended that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has erred in considering and appreciating the evidence of Mr. Bhavsar, Labour and Minimum Wages Act, and has erroneously observed that there were 100 employees of the accused No. 1 establishment, which is not true. Further, it has also been contended that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has erred in not considering the fact that the accused had not produced documentary evidence in the form of registers, which were required to be maintained and, therefore, the present appeal has been filed.