ABBURI CHALAMAYYA Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These criminal revision cases have been referred to a Full Bench because of the general importance of the question involved in them, which pertains to the liability of a Branch Manager of a Co-operative Bank inter alia to maintain the prescribed registers, and turns on the true construction of Section 4(1) (a) read in the light of Clauses 5 and 12 of Section 2 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 now called "The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Shops and Establishments Act, 1947" (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Before the Divisional Bench which referred this matter to the Full Bench, the correctness of the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court (Sharfuddin Ahmed, J.) touching the above point in Public Prosecutor v. Sundaradara Rao, 1963-2 Andh W. R. 125 was challenged by the learned Public Prosecutor. We may also mention that Mohamed Mirza, J. doubted the correctness of the above decision in his order dated 29-6-1966 (AP), referring Criminal Appeal No. 617 of 1964 to a Bench. That appeal too has been placed before us and our judgment in this batch of revision cases will govern that case also.

(2.) The petitioner in all these revision cases is one A. Chalamayya, who is stated to be the Manager of the Tekkali Branch of the Srikakulam Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., and he has been convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2 in each of the four cases for infringement of one or other of the rules framed under the Act. The rule said to have been violated in the first of these cases is Rule 16(9) which provides for the maintenance by every employer of a register for the holidays and leave granted to persons employed in his establishment. The second case concerns the breach of Rule 11(5) which requires the maintenance of a register of wages. The third case relates to the contravention of Rule 16(12) which enjoins the exhibition of a notice in a conspicuous place of the establishment, specifying the name and address of the establishment and the name and residential address of the employer. The fourth case pertains to the infraction of Rule 16(1) which requires every employer to maintain a register of employment in the prescribed form.

(3.) The facts concurrently found by the Courts below and not challenged before us, are the following: The petitioner is the Manager of the Tekkali Branch of the Srikakulam Co-operative Central Bank. He is the representative of the head office and is the head of the Branch at Tekkali, There are besides himself, a clerk, a cashier and a peon in the establishment. On 8-8-1962, P. W. 1 (Sri C. Krishna Murthy), who was then the Assistant Inspector of Labour, Sompeta, inspected the Tekkali Branch of the Co-operative Central Bank. He found the petitioner in charge of the Bank. None of the registers prescribed by the rules were maintained by the petitioner. There was no employment register, there was no wage register and the leave register was not maintained from 1-1-1962 to the date of inspection. No notice was put up showing the name and address of the establishment and the residential address of the employer. According to P W. 1, the petitioner took a defiant attitude disowned his liability to maintain the registers and questioned the authority of P. W. 1 to inspect the Bank and ask for the production of the registers. Subsequently P. W. 1 launched the present prosecution