IN RE: GAITONDE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions, Crl. R.C. No. 1026 of 1976 and Crl. R.C. No. 1027 of 1976 arise out of the judgments in C.C. Nos. 26803 of 1976 and C.C. No, 26804 of 1976 respectively on the file of the Second Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras.

(2.) THE facts are: - The revision petitioner, Gaitonde is an employer of an establishment known as Coramandel Leather Private Limited situate at No. 39, Perianna Maistry Street, Madras -3. The Assistant Inspector of Labour, 21st Circle, inspected the establishment on 29th June, 1976 at 3.15 P.M. and found that the revision petitioner has failed to exhibit Form J. notice at the time of inspection and has also failed to produce the inspection book when demanded at the time of inspection, and therefore has contravened Rr.16(4)and 16(11) of the Shops and Establishments Rules and is liable to be punished under R. 18. A complaint was preferred by the Assistant Inspector of Labour after obtaining the necessary permission before the Second Metropolitan Magistrate who found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence with which he was charged and convicted and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 50 under each count. Aggrieved by the decision, the revision petitioner has filed Crl. R.C. No. 1026 of 1976.

(3.) THE inspection by the Assistant Labour Inspector, P.W. I of the Establishment of the revision petitioner is not disputed. The accusation is that the revision petitioner failed to exhibit Form J notice and failed to produce the visit book and that he also failed to produce the register of employment in Form F, and register of wages in Form M for inspection and register of leave in Form K. The evidence of P.W. I is that the revision petitioner has not produced the registers and the defence was that the premises inspected by the Assistant Labour Inspector, P.W. I at 39, Perianna Maistry Street, is only a godown and that those registers were kept at the registered office of the company which is only "three buildings away" from the godown and that the Act or the Rules do not contemplate the maintenance of two sets of registers, namely, one at the godown and the other at the registered office.