(1.) . These are three cases which are examples of grossly ridiculous sentences awarded for an offence under sec. 22A of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 (the act) for breach of certain rules of the Gujarat Minimum Wages Rules 1961 (the Rules). The sentence in each case awarded on each count on acceptance of the plea of guilty of the accused is a fine of a trifling sum of Rs. 10/- when the section provides for a fine upto Rs. 500.00.
(2.) Mr. Vaidya the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that these are the provisions which are enacted for the purpose of ensuring that the employees in the scheduled employment in respect of which the minimum rates os wages have been fixed under the Act pay these wages regularly to the employees. Maintenance of registers in prescribed forms issuance of cards slips etc. in prescribed forms are not mere ideal formalities but are machineries set for the purpose of carrying out the objects of the Act. Any breach of the provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder has to be viewed strictly and deterrent punishment should be meted out to those employers committing breaches of these provisions so that it may be an eye opener to others and liberty would not be taken by employers in these matters. Mr. Vaidya therefore urges that in the instant case the learned Magistrate when he passed the sentence of a fine of only Rs. 10.00 on each count in each of the three cases passed a sentence which is grossly inadequate and amounts to passing practically no sentence and allowing the employer to go scot-free from the precincts of a court room.
(3.) Mr. Vaidya in this connection draws my attention to a decision of R. C. Mankad J. in Criminal Appeal No. 762 of 1977 decided on 23rd August 1978 where also a fine of Rs 10/- was imposed for an offence punishable under sec. 22A of the Act and in enhancement proceedings the same was enhanced to the maximum awardable under the Act viz. Rs. 500.00. The learned Judge while enhancing the sentence observed that the offence committed by the accused in not issuing the attendance cards to their workers in not maintaining stamped receipts in the wage book and in not paying monthly salary to the Workers in accordance with Rule 21 was a serious offence that the Act is a price of social legislation enacted for the benefit and to protect the interest of the employees and that therefore any violation of the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder mast be strictly viewed because by failure to maintain proper register the accused must be depriving the workers of their legitimate dues.