THE STATE Vs. Y.K. NANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a State appeal from the order of learned Sessions Judge of Ambala, who on appeal set aside the conviction of Y.K. Nanda, Manager, Punjab National Bank Limited, Rupar, Respondent, under Section 26 of the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentence of Rs. 25 passed by the learned Magistrate First Class of Rupar.

(2.) THE State through the Inspector of Shops and Commercial Establishments, Rupar Circle, lodged a complaint under Section 16(4) read with Sections 18 and 26 of the Act against Y.K. Nanda, Manager, Punjab National Bank Limited, Rupar, in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Chandigarh, which, came up for hearing before Shri Gurnam Singh, Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh. The complainant alleged that Krishan Lal, an employee of the Punjab National Bank Limited, Rupar, resigned from his job with effect from 26th December, 1960, when 41 days unavailed leave was due to him. The emoluments for this period at the rate of Rs. 123.45 nP. per month were due to him which were payable on or before the next pay day. The Respondent in spite of repeated demands is said to have refused to pay the amount on the ground that according to Shastri award the unavailed leave due to the employees lapsed on the day he left the Bank's service. The trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that Krishan Lal was entitled to Rs. 164.60 nP. as his wages in lieu of the unavailed leave of 41 days and consequently, directed the Respondent to pay this amount as well as Rs. 300 in addition by way of compensation under Section 18(1) of the Act. He also held him guilty for violating the provisions made in Section 16(4) of the Act and thus sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 25 under Section 26 of the Act. The accused -Respondent felt aggrieved from the above order and preferred an appeal in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge of Ambala, who reduced the amount of compensation awarded by the trial Magistrate from Rs. 300 to Rs. 100 and set aside his aforesaid conviction and sentence. According to him the amount of compensation awarded to Krishan Lal, under Section 18(1) of the Act was by way of penalty and as such the Respondent could not be punished under Section 26 of the Act.

(3.) FOR the above reasons the appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Sessions Judge setting aside the conviction and sentence of the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act is vacated and instead the order of the trial Magistrate convicting the Respondent under Section 26 of the Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 25 is restored. The remaining part of the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing the Respondent to pay Rs. 164.60 nP. to Krishan Lal as his wages in lieu of the unavailed leave of 41 days and Rs. 100 by way of compensation of course stands.