PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (ANDH PRA) Vs. PANCHALA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions are directed against the order of the learned Special First Class Magistrate and presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur.

(2.) It appears that a complaint was filed before him by the Labour Inspector (Central) Gudur against P. Panchala Reddy, a Railway contractor under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The learned Magistrate with reference to a decision of the Bombay High Court reported in Mohanlal Devichand Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1963) 2 Lab LJ, 241 : (A.I.R. 1964 Bom 67) in which it was held that a stone quarry is not a mine, and as such, the Inspector (Central) was not competent to file a complaint, refused to take the case on file. But, that very case was taken up before the Supreme Court, and the decision of the Bombay High Court was reversed. This case was reported in State of Maharashtra Vs. Mohanlal Devichand Shah, A.I.R. 1966 SC 189 . In that case, the Supreme Court has held that the word "mine" is not a definite term, and it includes quarries, and when one examines the definition of appropriate Government in Sec. 2 (b) in the context and in the background of the Government of India Act, 1935 and the then existing law, it is obvious that the Central Legislature intended to include quarries in the word 'mine' otherwise, it would be rather incongruous that some matters like health and safety, hours of employment in quarries should be regulated by the Central Government and minimum wages by the State Governments.

(3.) In the present case, it is a quarry, and therefore, it will be competent for the Central Government to file a complaint. The Magistrate will take the case on file, and dispose it of according to law. Order accordingly.