STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHANTARAM GOVIND DOLAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Shantaram Govind Dolas has been acquitted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, of the offence under S. 22A of the Bombay Minimum Wages Act (Act 30 of 1957) read with rules 22, 26(1), 26(5), 26A and 26B of the Bombay Minimum Wages Rules, 1951. The State has filed this appeal against the said acquittal.

(2.) The accused has got a bidi shop. The premises of the accused were visited on 4 March, 1959 by the complainant, Minimum Wages Act inspector, Bombay. The premises were found to be manufactory for manufacturing bidis. The complainant found at the time of the visit seven workers, whose names have been mentioned in the complainant, and that they were preparing bidis for the accused. The manufacturing process was being carried on under the supervisions of one Gajanan Mahadeo Satvilkar who appears to be a manger for looking after the preparation of bidis on behalf of the accused. The complainant, who is a Government labour officer and also an inspector under the Minimum Wages Act, questioned the seven workers, who were working in the manufactory and were preparing bidis, and learnt form them that they were employed for preparing bidis for the accused and that they were being paid at the rate of Rs. 3 per 1,000 bidis. The workers also told that labour officer that they were supplying their own leaves for preparing the bidis. The workers pointed out Gajanan Mahadeo Satvilkar as the person who was looking after the preparation of bidis on behalf of the accused. The complainant them asked Satvilkar whether those seven workers were employed by the accused and Satvilkar replied in the affirmative. Satvilkar also confirmed what the workers had told the complainant about their being the employees of the accused and the rate at which they were being paid. The complainant then called upon Satvilkar to produce registers required under the Act. The complainant also found that the notices of minimum wages were not displayed in the premises. The complainant then wrote the visit remarks with a carbon underneath and gave the original of the visit remarks to Satvilkar and obtained his signature on the original and on the carbon copy. This copy of the original given to Satvilkar has been filed on record as Ex. B. The complainant also took the signatures of the seven workers who were working in the manufactory on a piece of paper had that paper has also been filed on record as Ex. C. As the accused had not maintained attendance cards in V-D (rule 26B), muster roll in form V [(rule 26(5)], wages register in [IV-A, rule 26(1)], and a well-bound inspection book (rule 26A), the complainant has filed this complaint against he accused as, according to her, the accused has committed an offence under S. 26(a) read with the rules under which the above records have to be maintained. It was also noticed that the accused had not displayed notices required to be displayed under S. 18 of the Minimum Wages Act read with rule 22.

(3.) The defence of the accused in his words is as follows : "I deny that the persons named in the complaint are my employees. Some of them come to my place once or twice a month. They purchase tobacco from me. They manufacture bidis from leaves brought by them. They had their own instruments of trade such as pair of scissors, utensils, strings, etc. They sell bidis to me so manufactured by them on may premises occupied by them and I purchase the said bidis from them at the rate of Rs. 5.25 nP. per 1,000 bidis. In the circumstances I am not bound to comply with any provisions under the Bombay Minimum Wages Rules and Act as mentioned in the complaint."