M RAMGOPAL Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short but important question which has been debated in this criminal miscellaneous petition is whether the establishment in which the petitioner is working as branch manager, which is already registered under the Factories Act as Automotive Manufacturers, Maddipalem, Visakhapatnam, has once again to be registered under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act ? Mainly relying upon the definition of "employee" under Section 2 (8) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act and on, the definition of "worker" under Section 2 (1) of the Factories Act it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that inasmuch as the personnel who are working in its establishment come under the definition of "worker" as defined under the Factories Act and since such of the employees have been excluded any the definition under Section 2 (8) of the Shops and Establishments Act and the establishment has already been registered under the Factories Act, the insistence upon registration of the establishment under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act is without foundation as it is excluded by the provisions enacted under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act.

(2.) BEFORE analysis the relevant report under exhibit I made by the Assistant Labour Officer under the Shops and Establishments Act and also the relevant statutory provisions be noticed. According to the inspection order, dated 22 January 1983, the position of the personnel in the establishment is as under: workshop-13, administrative staff-51. It also shows the workshop trainees and sales trainees. Then it reads:

(3.) THEN on 9th May 1983, the establishment replied stating in substance that inasmuch as the establishment has already been registered under the Factories Act, the question of compliance with the provisions under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act and the rules framed therein does not arise. Thereafter proceedings were initiated before the Special Munsif Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, in S. T. C. No. 1885 of 1883, for non-compliance with the provisions enacted under Sections 3 (1) and 3a read with Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act. The learned Special Munsif Magistrate held against the establishment stating that the establishment falls within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act and, therefore, it has to be registered under the said Act. Consequently, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and convicted the petitioner, who is the branch manager of the said establishment and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 25 on each count, total Rs. 50 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four days. Against the said conviction, the matter was carried in revision before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, who confirmed the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner.