V K MURTHY A 1 Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision case filed by A-1 V.K. Murthy against the judgment, dated 8th February, 1983 in C.C.No.8900 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, finding A-1 guilty under Rr.22,26(5),26(1), 25(2), 21(f) and 26(2) of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950, convicting him thereunder and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.25 for each offence, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week for each offence. A-2 was acquitted by the lower Court under section 255(1), Criminal procedure Code.

(2.) THE case of the complainant-State represented by the Labour Enforcement Officer, Office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Sastri Bhavan, Madras-600006, is that the complainant/respondent herein has been appointed as an -Inspector- under section 19(1) of the Minimum Wages Act for the State of Tamil Nadu by the Government of India - Gazette Notification No.S.32013(1)/75-WC (MW), dated 12th May, 1976 (S.O. 1807) published in the Gazette of India, dated 29th May, 1976). THE complaint was filed by the complainant/respondent herein against A-1 V.K. Murthi (revision-petitioner herein), Managing Partner of M/s. V.K. Murthi, No.60, R.H.Road, Madras-4, and another under section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act, for violation of Rr.22, 26(5), 26(1), 25(2), 21(4) and 26(2) of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950. It is also the case of the complainant that the accused is an -employer- as per section 2(e) of the said Act in respect of the contract work of -construction of overhead tank at Perambur, Madras-12 that the construction or maintenance of roads or in building operations- is a scheduled employment as per section2(g) of the said Act for which minimum rates of wages have been fixed by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi-vide Notification No.S.O.3613, dated 16th December, 1978 that R. Venkataseshan, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Madras, who has also been appointed as -Inspector- under section 19(1) of the said Act-vide Gazette Notification No.S.32013(1)/ 75-WC (MW) dated 12th May, 1976 of Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi having jurisdiction over the said employer-s work, inspected the above said work on 12th January, 1980 under the aforesaid Act/Rules and observed that the accused had committed the following contraventions: (i) failed to display notice showing an abstract of the Act and Rules in English in contravention of Rule 22 (ii) Failed to maintain Muster Roll properly at the workspot (Cls.3 and 6 are missing) in contravention of Rule 26(5) (iii) Failed to maintain register of wages at the workspot in contravention of Rule 26(1) (iv) Failed to maintain register of overtime at the workspot in contravention of Rule 25(2) (v) Failed to maintain Register of Fines and Deductions for damage or loss at the workspot in contravention of Rule 21(4) and (vi) Failed to issue wage slips to the workers in contravention of Rule 26(2). It is also the case of the complainant/respondent herein that the abovesaid offences under the said Act/Rules, as observed by R. Venkataseshan, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Madras, were incorporated by him in the inspection report-cum-show cause notice No.M-26/12/81/E2, dated 12th January, 1981 and the same was handed over to the accused-s representative at the workspot and another copy was sent to the accused by registered post acknowledgment due which was received by him. It is also the case of the complainant that the accused having thus contravened the provisions of the said section of the said Act/Rules at the said work within the jurisdiction of the lower court, has rendered himself liable for prosecution under section 22-A of the- Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and hence the complaint had been laid before the lower Court. THE following list of prosecution witnesses and documents relied upon in support of the complaint is found as part of the complaint that had been filed before the lower Court by the complainant-M.S. Ponnuswamy, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Madras and an -Inspector- under section 19(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948: 1. Shri R. Venkataseshan, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Trichy 2. Shri M.S. Ponnuswamy, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Madras 3. Shri R. Punniakoti, Assistant Engineer, Post and Telegraphs, Madras 4. Inspection report-cum-show cause notice No.M-26/12/81/E2, dated 12th January, 1981 5. Statement dated 12th January, 1981 given by Shri K. Ramamurthy, Site-in-charge at the time of inspection. 6. Postal acknowledgement from the accused and 7. Contract agreement with the Post and Telegraphs, Madras.- Even in the complaint filed before the lower Court dated 2nd June, 1981 it is seen that the complainant-M.S. Ponnuswamy has signed the complaint in the capacity as an -Inspector- under section 19(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

(3.) IT is, inter alia, contended by Mr. V. Gopinathan, learned Counsel for A-1/revision-petitioner herein that the lower Court had not properly appreciated the contentions raised before it and as such the order under revision is not correct and in accordance with law.