PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. SUNDARADARA RAO M

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question in these two appeals is whether the provisions of Section 4 (1) (a) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), are applicable to the respondent herein who is stated to be the manager of Sri Krishna Picture Palace, Guntur.

(2.) TWO cases were laid against the respondent herein by the Assistant Inspector of Labour, Guntur, with the allegation that when the establishment was inspected by him on 8 March 1961 at 8-50 p. m. , he found that the respondent "had failed to comply with the provisions of the Act and rules to the extent of Rules 16 (9), 18 (4), 16 (12) in 0. No. 688 of 1961 and Rule 16 (11) read with Rule 16b, in C. No. 689 of 1961. These cases were tried by the Special First-class Magistrate and presiding officer, labour court, Guntur. The learned Magistrate held that as the provisions of Section 4 (1) (a) of the Act exempt the petitioner from the operation of the Act, he was not liable to punishment for the contravention of rules. Accordingly, he dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused. The appeals are directed against this order.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is to the effect that under the Act the term " employer " has been defined to include a " manager. " As such, when the rules impose a liavility on the employer to maintain registers and exhibit notices, etc. , in a particular manner, the manager is also liable for the non-observance of rules. The definition of employer under the section [section 2 (5)] reads as under: Employer' means a person owning, or having charge of the business of an establishment and includes the manager, agent or other person acting in the general management or control of an establishment. Section 45 of the Act provides penalty for any employer who contravenes any of the provisions of Sections 7, 9 to 11, etc, and renders him liable to punishment with fine. The term "employer" has not been defined in the rules which have been framed under Section 49 of the Act, so that, the definition "employer" in the Act itself would govern the term " employer "used in the rules as well. There would have been no difficulty in holding the manager liable for the maintenance of registers, etc, if there was no exemption from the operation of the Act as provided in Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 runs as under: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to