PRAMANAND SANGHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Pramanand Sanghi has been tried by the Sixth City Magistrate, Hyderabad, for an offence under section 36 read with section 41 of the Hyderabad Shops and Establishments Act (X of 1951) and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20 or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 5 days. This matter has come on a reference made by the learned Chief City Magistrate under section 438, Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) The learned Chief City Magistrate who heard the revision petition filed by the accused is of the view that in a case where an employee is paid salary he cannot be considered as an employee receiving wages, as the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bhagvandas and three others, In re, Crl. R.C. No. 33 of 1956, will govern the case and as also the amendment of the definition of the word 'wages' contained in section 2 (vi) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, cannot apply retrospectively, the order of the Sixth City Magistrate convicting the accused requires to be set aside.

(3.) The accused is a petrol dealer trading under the style of 'Prem Brothers'. The employee whom he discharged on 21st March, 1958, is Sheik Mohammed. The latter had been in the service of the former from 23rd December, 1949. He had been paid a salary of Rs. 65 at the time when he was discharged. The complaint made by the discharged employee is that he was not paid gratuity which he is entitled to receive under the provisions of section 36 of the Hyderabad Shops and Establishments Act. The accused does not deny the non-payment of the gratuity, but contends that he is not under an obligation to pay gratuity to an employee who is only entitled to payment of salary and not to wages. It is on this contention there has been a difference of opinion between the trial Court and the revisional Court. The learned Sixth City Magistrate held that even though the Andhra Pradesh High Court followed the decision reported in K.V.V. Sarma, In re, (1952)2 M.L.J. 917, the view of the same High Court in a later decision in Managing Director, T.S.T. Co. v. Perumal Naidu, (1957)2 M.L.J. 345, has to be preferred, in that, that later decision of the Madras High Court dissented from the earlier one. As already adverted to, the learned Chief City Magistrate was unable to agree with this view of the trial Court.