STATE Vs. SAIT P SHENBAGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State, represented by the Assistant Inspector of Labour, 1st Circle, Kovilpatti, challenging the acquittal of the respondent by the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Kovilpatti, in S.T.C.No.463 of 1986 tried for offence under Rules 15 and 16(4)(a) of the Shops and Establishment Rules, 1948, read with Sec.18 of the Shops and Establishment Act, 1947.

(2.) THE allegation against the respondent was that on 30.11.1985, when the Inspector of Labour, inspected Viji Trading Company, of which the respondent was the Managing partner, there were violations of Rules 15 and 16(4) (a), in that, the name board of the concern was not in Tamil and no ?J? form showing the working hours of Typist Raja was found.

(3.) AS far as the facts are concerned, it is not disputed that at the time of the inspection by P.W.I, the name Board did not contain the Tamil translation. In Ex.P-4, the respondent has stated that he had since then altered the name board. It is clear, therefore, that at the time of the inspection there was violation of Rule 15. Regarding Rule 16(4)(a), according to the prosecution, Typist Raja was employed in Viji Trading company and at the time of P.W.1's inspection, Raja was physically present doing typing work and no ?J? form was maintained for him. The respondent would state that Raja was only a boy from the neighbouring house, who had been requested to stay in the place during his temporary absence, and that there are no employees in Viji Trading Company. This explanation of the respondent cannot be accepted. Even in Ex.P-1, in inspection report, P.W.I has stated that Typist was present and when questioned, had given his salary as Rs.200. Raja has signed Ex.P-1. Further, Ex.P-4, which is the reply of the respondent and which is written in the letter-head of the Viji Trading Company, shows that the same has been registered for sales tax purposes and it has phone number and it is an established business. The partnership deed produced shows that the partnership is dealing with purchase and sale of safety matches and purchase and sale of raw materials for the manufacture of matches in whole sale, retail and commission basis, acting as agents for any supplier or manufacturer and undertaking, private or government contract. Even paragraph-7 of the partnership deed contemplates appointment of a person to conduct the affairs of the firm, and who will be paid 20% of the net profit of the firm. When such is the situation, it is unacceptable that the partnership firm should not have a single employee. I, therefore, hold that Raja was a regular employee in the firm as a Typist and ?J? form was required for him and had not been maintained.