STATE Vs. EYEWIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State has come forward with this Appeal against the order of acquittal by the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam acquitting the Respondent / accused in STC.No.1111/1995 (judgment dated 31.05.1996) for violations of Sec.11(1) and R.16(11) r/w.16-B of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act.

(2.) Relevant facts necessitated for disposal of this Appeal could briefly be stated thus:- P.W.1 is the Assistant Labour Inspector, Usilampatti. On 16.05.1995 - 2.40 PM, P.W.1 inspected Royal Type Office (Job Typing and Xerox), where the job typing is carried on. The Royal Type Office is a 'Shop' within the meaning of Sec.2(16) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'TN S&E Act'). As required under Sec.11, the Notice of Weekly Holiday was not exhibited in a conspicuous place in the shop. Inspection Book was also not produced. Violations of Sec.11(1) and Rule 16(11) r/w.16-B of TN S&E Act were noted.

(3.) P.W.1 prepared Ex.P.1 - Report. Along with Ex.P.1 Report, Show cause Notice, Ex.P.2 - was served upon the accused. On receipt of the show cause notice, accused sent the reply - Ex.P.3 contending that his Type Office would not fall within the meaning of definition of a "Shop" or "Establishment". Further, according to the Respondent / accused, he has not employed anybody else for work in the Type Office and he is the only person doing the work of typing and preparing copies through Xerox machine. Since no other person is engaged in the Office, provisions of Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act is not applicable to his Type Office. Opining that the explanation sent by the accused is not satisfactory and after obtaining consent Ex.P-4, the Complaint was filed on 30.10.1995.