LOKNATH NATHULAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application against the order elated 6-2-1958 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Jubbulpore in Criminal Revision No. 104 of 1957 - whereby he maintained the order of conviction and sentence passed against the applicant by the First Class Magistrate Jabalpur In Criminal Case No. 1784 of 1956. The facts of the case briefly stated arc that the applicant has under an agreement Ex. D/1 contracted to supply to Mohanlal Hargovind 'Biris'. The terms of the agreement show that Mohanlal Hargovind was to supply raw materials to the applicant who in his turn was, on his own responsibility as to payment of wages, to engage workers for the purpose of getting 'Biris' prepared out of the said raw materials.

(2.) The supply of 'Bins' prepared by the workers employed by the applicant was subject to approval of a person to be deputed for this purpose by Mohanlal Hargovind. Mohanlal Hargovind's munim was entitled to check the stock of leaves and tobacco with the applicant. The prosecution case is that the applicant was 'an employer' in Biri making industry at Jubbulpore to which the Minimum Wages Act is applicable. It is a fact admitted by the accused that he failed to maintain registers and record as required under Section 18 of the Minimum Wages Act and Rules 21, 22, 25 and 27 framed thereunder. His contention is that the Minimum Wages Act does not apply to him. In support of this contention the following points were urged before me by the learned counsel for the applicant during the course of his arguments : (1) that the applicant was not an employer within the meaning of Section 2(E) of the Minimum Wages Act since the relationship of a master and servant did not exist between him and the labourers who prepared 'Biris' for him; (2) that the applicant had no tobacco manufactory. The labourers who took the caw materials from him and supplied 'Biris' which they prepared out of the said raw material at their respective places of residence could not be said to be 'in employment in any tobacco or Biri making manufactory' within, the meaning of item No. 3 of the schedule Part I of the Minimum Wages Act.

(3.) Section 2(g) of the Minimum Wages Act defines scheduled employment as under : "Scheduled employment means an employment specified in the schedule or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment." The schedule mentions at item No. 3 "employment in any tobacco (including Biri making) manufactory." The contention of the learned counsel for. the applicant is that unless the labourers or workers performing the process of Bill- making work at a defined place, their employment could not be said to be in a Biri making manufactory. Now what is material for the purpose of Section 18 of the Minimum Wages Act is whether the persons who were receiving raw materials from the applicant and preparing Biris out of the same at their respective houses were employees within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act. Section 2(i) runs as under : "employee" means any person who is employed for hire or reward to do any work, skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical, in a scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed; and includes an outworker to whom any articles or materials are given out by another person to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, repaired, adapted or otherwise processed for sale for the purposes of the trade or business of that other person where the process is to be earned out either in the home of the out-worker or in some other premises not being premises under the control and management of that other person; and also includes an employee declared to be an employee by the appropriate Government; but does not include any member of the Armed Forces of the Union."