LAWS(CAL)-1968-7-1

MAZUMDAR Vs. STATE

Decided On July 19, 1968
MAZUMDAR Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is against an order dated 23-2-68 passed by Shri R. K. Kar, Presidency Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta convicting the accused on three counts under secton 22a of the Minimum wages Act 1948 (Act XI of 1948), read with section 18 of the Said Act and rules 22 (1), 21 (4), 23 and 23a of the west Bengal Minimum Wages Rules, 1951 and sentencing him thereunder to pay a fine of Rs. 35/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one week on each, count, in case No. C-2588 of 1967.

(2.) THE facts leading on to the present case are short and simple. The accused-petitioner is said to be the owner of a printing press, carried on under the name and style of M s. West bengal Printers at 117/a, B. B. Ganguly street. Calcutta within the jurisdiction of the Muchipara Police Station. A. complaint under section 22a of the minimum Wages Act, 1948 was filed by one Karuna Sankar Basu, an inspector appointed under section 19 of the said act and it was alleged inter alia therein that the accused is the owner of the abovementioned printing. press and that under section 27 of the said Act, the employment in printing press has been added to part I of the schedule under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 by government Notification No. 3048. LW/lw/2w-29/61 dated the 20th June,1961. The accused is an "employer" within the meaning of section 2 (e) of the aforesaid Act of the said printing press concerned and under section 18 of the said Act, it is obligatory on the part of the said accused as an employer to maintain registers and records, to exhibit notices and to submit returns " as prescribed in Rules 21 (4), 21 (4-A), 22 (1) and 23 of the West Bengal Minimum Wages Rules, 1951. It is alleged that the accused had contravened the provisions of section 18 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and of the relevant provisions of the West Bengal minimum Wages Rules, 1951, by not maintaining the registers and records, by not producing the same at the time of inspection, by not displaying notices in form XIII and by not submitting annual return in form III for the year 1966. A notice under registered post was served on the accused on 15-7-67 with acknowledgement due, directing the accused to show cause as to why he should not be proceeded against for the aforesaid violations of the abovementioned -Act and of the Rules made there under but no reply was received by the complainant thereto and as such the present prosecution was filed.

(3.) THE accused-petitioner was ultimately placed on his trial before Shri r. K. Kar, Presidency Magistrate, 8th court, Calcutta to answer the above-mentioned charges on three counts and he pleaded not guilty thereto. The prosecution in this case besides proving several documents also examined three witnesses-one of whom is P. W. I, karuna Sankar Basu, an inspector appointed under section 19 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and other two are the former employees of the accused-petitioner. As a result of the trial the trying magistrate by his order dated 23-2-68 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner on all the three counts as mentinoed above. It is this order of conviction and sentence that has been impugned and forms the subject-matter of the present Rule.