STATE Vs. T K BEEMA GOWDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal arises out of acquittal in STC.No.1004/1994 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Kothagiri acquitting Respondent / accused for the violations of R.27(1) r/w.28, R.27(2) r/w.28, R.27(5) r/w.28, R.27(6) r/w.28 of Minimum Wages Act.

(2.) Relevant facts necessitated for disposal of this Appeal could briefly be stated thus:- Complainant / Inspector of Plantations had inspected a Tea Garden measuring about 18 acres called "Naragiri Estate" on 22.06.1994 - 3.45 PM. Complainant / P.W.1 noted the following violations: Provisions of Minimum Wages Act Violation of Rule 27(1) r/w.R.28 Register of Wages to be maintained by every employer. Rule 27(2) r/w.R.28 Wage slips containing the aforesaid particulars to be issued to every person employed by him. Rule 27(5) r/w.R.28 Maintenance of Muster Roll by every employer at the work spot. Rule 27(6) r/w.R.28 Register of Employees to be maintained by the employer at the work spot or Principal Office attached to it.

(3.) Complainant / P.W.1 prepared Ex.P.1 - Inspection Report. Ex.P.2 - Notice was sent to the accused. The accused sent Ex.P.3 - Reply dated 20.07.1994, in which the accused claimed that he owns only 6.50 acres (not 18 acres as stated by the Complainant), and that accused is entitled to be protected under the LABOUR LAWS (EXEMPTION FROM FURNISHING RETURNS AND MAINTAINING REGISTERS BY CERTAIN ESTABLISHMENTS ACT, 1988 (Act 51 of 1988) since the accused owns his property as " Very Small Establishment" and the accused did not employ more than 9 persons but only less than 9 persons. Explanation by the accused was not satisfactory. Hence, the Complainant has sought for sanction to prosecute the accused for violation of the Rules under Minimum Wages Act. Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore has considered the materials placed before him and granted Ex.P.10 - Sanction Order for prosecuting the accused. Thereafter, Ex.P.11 - Complaint was filed against the Respondent / accused.