STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MOHANLAL DEVICHAND SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals preferred by the State Government from the aiders of acquittal raise common questions of law and fact and can, therefore," be disposed qf by the same judgment. The accused was working a stone quarry at Lonavala. For carrying on' that work, he had employed a few workers. On 214-61 the Inspector appointed by the Central Government, inspected the quarry and found the following failures:

(2.) THE accused contended that it was not necessary to keep the Registers on the workspot, nor was it practicable to do so as the spot was an open space. He fur-ther contended that the Inspector appointed by the Central Government had no authority to lodge the complaints and the Court cannot take cognizance of the complaints filed by him, under Section 22-B (b) of the Minimum of Wages Act. The trying Magistrate treated the secona point as a preliminary objection and on consideration ot the provisions of the Minimum Wagse Act and some other relevant provisions, came to the conclusion that the Inspector appointed by the Central Government was not competent to lodge the complaints. Consequently, he discharged the accused on all the counts. It is from these decisions that the State has prerred these two appeals.

(3.) NOW, It is necessary to refer to some of tne provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, for appreciating the rival contentions raised in these appeals. The Act hss been passed with a view to provjde for minimum rates of wages in certain employments and the enforcement of the provisions of the Act is entrusted to either the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be. Section 2 (b) of the Minimum Wages Act [hereinafter called as the Act) defines "appropriate Government" as: