ABU MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ applications have been heard together, as the parties are identical, although not the points to be considered. They have been heard one after another and will be determined by this judgment.

(2.) Cr. W. J. C. No. 13 of 1973 In this application petitioner No. 1 is Secretary of Motipur Zamindari Company Private Limited and petitioner No. 2 is Farm Manager of the said Company. Petitioner No. 3 happens to be a Director of the same Company. A complaint was filed on 13-6-1972 by the Labour Inspector-Cum-Inspecting Officer under the Minimum Wages Act before the Subdivisional Magistrate, Muzaffarpur wherein it was alleged that in the course of inspection by the complainant on 16-12-1971, he had found the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act being observed in their breach. The breach consisted in non-display of minimum fixed wages and summary of the Minimum Wages Act. This, according to the Inspecting Officer, constituted contravention of Section 18 (2) of the Minimum Wages Act read with Rule 22 made thereunder. The second contravention consisted in the fact that labourers had been working in the farm for 8 to 10 days, but they had not been given wage slips, in contravention of Section 18 (3) of the Act and Rule 26 (2) of the Rules. The third contravention consisted in the fact that the petitioners failed to produce muster-roll, over-time register, papers relating to penalty and deductions from the salary although they had been asked to do so by letter dated 9-2-1972. Thus the Company contravened S. 18 (1) of the Act and R. 19 (2) (a) of the Rules. On receipt of the prosecution report the Sub-divisional Magistrate took cognizance of offences under S. 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate dated 14-6-1972, the petitioners have moved this Court for quashing the entire proceeding pending before the trial Court.

(3.) The functions of the Motipur Zamindari Company, of which the petitioners are the office bearers, were to run farms as well as to collect rent from tenants. The work of collection of rent came to an end in 1953 when the Zamindari of the Company vested in the State of Bihar pursuant to the enactment of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The petitioners have averred that in 1962 the Company sold away its entire agricultural farm to Motipur Sugar Factory Private Limited by a registered sale deed dated 28-2-1972 and since then the entire agricultural operations of the erstwhile farms of Motipur Zamindari Company were being carried on by Motipur Sugar Factory Private Limited. Thus by 1962 this Zamindari Company neither had any zamindari nor any agricultural farm and all that remained was the business of brick-kiln, Surkhi grinding, construction and letting out buildings on hire and money-lending. In unmistakable terms it has been stated in para. 6 of the writ petition that the Zamindari Company had no agricultural farm department. The workmen of the Motipur Zamindari Company had formed a Trade Union under the name and style of Motipur Zamindari Company Mazdoor Union. In 1957 an industrial dispute was raised by the workmen. Reference was, therefore, made by the State Government referring the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal under S. 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. One of the moot points referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal was in regard to the wage structures of the workmen employed in the Company. The Industrial Tribunal gave its award fixing wages for workmen on 31-1-1963. In 1967 again an industrial dispute cropped up and the State Government again referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal (Reference No. 77 of 1967). The first question referred for adjudication in this case was whether the scales of wages of the workmen of Motipur Zamindari Company needed revision. The other question was in respect of linking dearness allowance of the workmen with costs of living index. The award of the Industrial Tribunal was published on 1-7-1968. The dispute between the workmen and the Company was agitated before the Supreme Court which modified the award in some particulars. The award subject to modifications by the Supreme Court is still in force. The position in this regard has not been disputed by the respondents. On these facts learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the minimum rates of wages fixed under the Act do not apply to the Motipur Zamindari Company by virtue of the provisions contained in S. 3 (2-A) of the Minimum Wages Act (hereinafter called the Act') and, therefore, the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 through the Labour Inspector for contravention of S. 18 of the Act is unfounded and the cognizance taken thereupon is illegal and without jurisdiction.