L.E.O. Vs. TAYABJI SULTANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant and perused the record of the case.

(2.) The respondent has been acquitted solely on the basis that P. W. 1 has not proved that the respondent is an employer and has simply proved that he is the owner of the mine and so liability under Rule 18 of the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956 does not arise. The word employer has been defined in Rule 2(g) to mean the owner of the mine also the Respondent did not plead that he is not the employer. The learned Magistrate did not consider the case on merits, Thus, the order of the acquittal deserves to be set aside and the case should go back for disposal in accordance with the law.

(3.) The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order of acquittal is set aside and the case is sent back for a disposal in accordance with law. Appeal allowed.