V V SURYA RAU Vs. SURENDRA RAMKRISHNA TENDULKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as common questions of law arise in all these matters.

(2.) THE petitioner in each of the petitions is the Executive Director of the National Organic Chemical Industries Limited (for short NOCIL ). In the complaint he is described as the occupier of the factory. The respondent No. 1 has filed complaints which are pending against the petitioner in the Court of the 1st Judicial Magistrate, Thane. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under sections 18 (1), 18 (3), 18 (2), 19 (4) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 read with Rules, 27 (1), 27 (2), 22 and 28 of the Maharashtra Minimum Wages Rules, 1963. Apart from the petitioner the contractor was also joined as an accused.

(3.) IN the complaint, the complainant has alleged that NOCIL had violated the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as also the provisions of the Maharashtra Minimum Wages Rules, 1953 by not maintaining registers in respect of the employees engaged through contractor to do work in the establishment. It was the contention of the complainant that the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is applicable, as the establishment engages labour to do work which is classified as scheduled employment under the said Act. The learned Magistrate by order dated 10th October, 1995 has convicted the accused No. 1, the contractor on his plea of guilt for offences punishable under sections 18 (1), 18 (3), 18 (2) and 19 (4) of the Minimum Wages Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 150/- on each count respectively. The Court further has directed the case to proceed against accused Nos. 2 and 3. Petitioner who is the original accused No. 2 has challenged the respective order in each complaint.