PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. M SUNDARADARA RAO

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 8th 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 rule 16 (9), 16 (4), 16 (12) in G.C. No. 688 of 1961 and rule 16 (11) read with rule 16-B, rule 16 (1) or (2) and (3) and rule 11(5) read with rule 16-B in C.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 liability on the employer to maintain registers and exhibit notices etc., in a particular manner, the manager is also liable for the non-observance o rules. The definition of ' employer' under section reads as under :