RAWELSINGH LADHASINGH Vs. H D GOIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Indore arises out of the prosecutions of three persons Ravelsingh, G. C. Mehta and Manekchand for an offence under Sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate of Indore. The prosecutions were initiated on separate complaints filed by the Labour Inspector of the Central government. During the course of the trial, all the accused persons raised the objection that as the building work, which they were executing for the Western Railway under a contract entered into between them and the President of India acting through the western Railway Administration, was not a "scheduled employment carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government," the Labour Inspector appointed by the Central Government was not competent to make any complaint against them for offences under Section 22 (2) of the Minimum Wages Act and that, therefore, the Additional District Magistrate could not take cognizance of the complaints filed by the Labour Inspector of the Central Government. This objection was rejected by the trial Magistrate. The accused persons then preferred four separate revision petitions before the sessions Judge of Indore. By a common order disposing of these revision petitions, the learned Sessions Judge has made this reference saying that the labour Inspector of the Central Government was not competent to make the complaints that he did and recommending that the proceedings taken by the additional District Magistrate of Indore on these complaints be quashed.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the point raised for determination in this reference, it is necessary to refer to the material provisions of the Minimum Wages Act 1948. Under Section 18 of the Act every employer, which term has been defined in section 2 (e ). is required to maintain certain registers and records. The failure to. maintain a register or a record required to be maintained under S 18 is punishable under Section 22 (2) of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 22 says that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under Sub-section (2) except on a complaint made by, or with the sanction of, an Inspector. The Inspector referred to in S, 22 (4) means the Inspector appointed under Section 19 of the Act. The section provides:

(3.) IN support of the recommendation made by the learned Sessions Judge, Mr. Chaphekar, learned counsel appearing for the accused persons, argued that the constructional work which the accused persons were executing was no doubt a "scheduled employment" but it was not one carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. It was said that the expression "scheduled employment carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government" in Section 2 (b) (i)of the Act meant an employment which was being carried on by the Government itself either through a department or by some authority created by it, that in the present case the constructional work was being carried on by the accused persons themselves in performance of the agreements entered into by them with the president of India acting through the Western Railway Administration; and that the employers were the accused persons themselves and not the President or India or the Government of India and the labourers employed by the accused persons in the execution of the work undertaken by them were their own employees and not the employees of the Central Government or of any authority created by the central Government. Learned counsel proceeded to say that, under Section 2 (b)the appropriate Government in relation to the constructional work being executed by the accused persons would not be the Central Government but the State government, and that therefore, consequently under Sections 19 and 22 of the act the Inspector appointed by the State Government alone was competent to make a complaint against the accused persons. Learned counsel placed reliance on carlsbad Mineral Water Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. P. K. Sarkar AIR 1952 Cal 6, Bharat Glass works (Private) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal AIR 1957 Cal 347; and the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra (S) AIR 1957 SC 264; and Chintaman Rao v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1958 sc 388.