Nathuram vs State

K.L. Pandey J.

This application in revision is directed against (he conviction of the applicant Nathuram u/s 22 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (XI of 1948) (hereinafter called the Act) for which he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.-20/-or to suffer, in default, simple imprisonment for one week.

The facts of the case are not in dispute. Nathuram is the manager of Radha-kishan Narayandas Bidi Karkhand situate at 280, South Miloniganj Road, Jabalpur. in which at she material time, 19 persons Were employed In that establishment, Bidis were not actually made but Bidis made by contractors were received, sorted out, paid for baked and packed for the market.

Nathuram admitted that, on 3 September 1956, when B.S. Thakur, Inspector under the Act, visited the establishment, he had not maintained the records and registers required by section 18 of the Act and Rules 21, 22, 25 and 27 of the Rules framed thereunder.

The prosecution case was that Nathu. ram was an employee of a scheduled employment, namely the making of Bidis to which the-Act applied. The defense, was, that the Act did not apply to the establishment where Bidis were not actually made.

5 A.K. Binerji, Magistrate first Class, Jabalpur. accepted the prosecution case., repelled the defense and convicted Nathuram, whose revision-was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions judge, Jabalpur.

The point arising for consideration is whether. Nathuram way an employer Within-the meaning of the Act in respect of the employment in which workers in the Radhakishan Narayan-das Bidi Karkhana were engaged.. According to clause (g) of section 2 of the Act, a scheduled employment means an employment specified in the Schedule, or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment "Employment in any tobacco (including Bidi making) manufactory'''' is specified in Part, I of the Schedule. Reading the two together. the employees working in the Karkhana must be regarded as employed in a scheduled employment, namely the manufacture of Bidis, It is however, clear from the Madhya Pradesh Gazette Notification No. 564-451-XXII dated 2 March 1956 that the minimum rates of wages fixed under sections 3 (I) (b) and 10(2) of the Act refer to "wages per thousand Bidis" made by an employee. Therefore, at the relevant time, minimum wages were not fixed for persons employed in the manufacture of Bidis otherwise than as Bidi makers. This is, therefore, a case in which the State Government chose to fix minimum wages for persons employed in only one branch of the work of manufacture of Bidis and the persons employed in other branches of the work were not entitled to the minimum wages fixed under the Act. The question is whether, in respect of the latter class of persons, the person who employed them was an "employer'''' within the meaning of the & Act, even though he had no obligation to pay to them minimum wages fixed, under the. Act,

7 The definition of employer occurring in section 2(e) of the Act is as follow:-

(e) ''employer'' means any person who employs, whether directly or through another person, or whether on behalf of himself or any other person, one or more employees in any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, and includes, except in sub-section (3) of section 26,--

(i) in a factory where there is carried on any scheduled employment in respect of which mini-'' mum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, any per son named under clause (f) of sub-section (1)of section. 7 of the Factories Act, 1948 (LXIII of 1948) as manager of the factory;

(ii) in any scheduled employment under the control of any Government in India in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, the person or authority appointed by such Government for the supervision and. control of employees or where no person or authority is so appointed, the head of the Department;

(iii, in any scheduled employment under any local authority in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, the person appointed by such authority for the supervision and control of employees or where no person is so appointed, the chief executive officer el the local authority;

(iv) in any other case where there is carried on any scheduled employ-meat in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, any person responsible to the owner for the supervision and control of the employees or for the payment of wages.

In my view, a person employing persons in any scheduled employment is not an employer within the meaning, of that Act, unless, in respect of that employment, minimum wages have been fixed under the Act. By parity of reasoning, if minimum wages have not been fixed for any branch of work of any scheduled employment the person employing workers in such branch is not an employer within the meaning of the Act. In this view, Nathuram was not an employer within the meaning of the Act in respect of the persons employed in his Jabalpur Karkhana and he could not be convicted u/s 22 of that act.

The revision succeeds and is allowed. The conviction of Nathuram and the sentence awarded to him are set aside and he is acquitted. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded.