Supdt and Remenbrancer of Legal Affairs vs N. Seen

R. Bhattacharya, J.—This is an appeal by the State of West Bengal against the order of acquittal passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kalimpong, in a trial where the accused-respondent was found not guilty in respect of the charge u/s 18 (1) of Minimum Wages Act read with Rules 22 (1), 23 (4) and 23 (5) framed by the State under the Minimum Wages Act. The prosecution case is simple. The accused N. Seen has been carrying on business for making shoes engaging labourers but, according to the prosecution allegation, the accused did not maintain any register whatsoever as required to be maintained under the Minimum Wages Act and under the Rules framed by the State thereunder. It appears from the evidence on record and from the judgment that the accused did not maintain any register whatsoever and the plea taken at the time of trial is that there is no provision of law under the Minimum Wages Act or under the Rules for maintenance of any register in any manufactory where shoes are manufactured with the aid of labour because in the schedule there is no mention about manufacture of shoes. It appears that the learned Magistrate accepted the contentions and on that ground the accused was acquitted.

Section 2 of the Minimum Wages Act speaks about the schedule of employment in connexion with which the employer is required to comply with the provisions of the Act and Section 18(1) of the said Act says that every employer shall maintain such register and records giving such particulars of employees employed by him, the work performed by them, the wages paid to them, the receipts given by them and such other particulars and in such form as may be prescribed. Rule 23(1) enumerates the registers to be maintain-ed by the employer. We are concerned in this case with sub-Rules 4 and 5 of Rule 23 where it has been stated that an over-time register in Form IV shall be maintained in Form V. Admittedly in this case no register was maintained by the respondent in the manufactory, the place where he gets the shoes manufactured through his labourers.

Let us now consider the main question whether the business or the manufacture of shoes out of leather comes under the purview of this Act and for this purpose we are to refer to the schedule attached to the Minimum Wages Act. We are concerned with item no. 12 of the said schedule which says "employment in tanneries and leather manufactory". According to the view of the learned Magistrate "leather manufactory" implies manufacture of leather and not shoes. In the absence of specific mention of shoe manufactory in the schedule, he finds that the present case is not governed under the Minimum Wages Act and that the accused-respondent was not under any obligation to maintain any register as required.

We have heard Mr. Rahaman, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State in support of the appeal and Mr. Dey, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused-respondent. The simple, common and the dictionary meaning of the word "tan" is to convert raw skin or hide of an animal by certain processes into finished leather and hence "tanneries" has been used besides the words "leather manufactory" in the item no. 12 of the schedule. Now the question is whether "leather manufactory" includes the manufacture of shoes from leather. We have already seen that in tanneries leather is manufactured from raw skin and therefore leather manufactory must be a separate establishment and this manufactory relates to the production or manufacture of articles out of tory mentioned in this schedule leather tery mentioned in this schedule leather cannot be produced but products of leather can be manufactured. Mr. Dey on behalf of the accused-respondent, however, could not find any other meaning save and except the one we have adopted. In this view of the interpretation of the words "leather manufactory" and in view of the evidence on record as also the plea of the accused, we must hold that as the accused-respondent failed to maintain register as required and in view of the fact that he is governed by the Minimum Wages Act, he ought to have been found guilty. The judgment of the learned Magistrate acquitting the respondent is, therefore, found to be erroneous and against law.

On the question of sentence we have also considered that the maximum amount is Rs. 500/-. Considering the plea of the accused as also the facts and circumstances we are inclined to pass a sentence of Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred only). In the result, the appeal succeeds. We hereby set aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate, find the accused guilty under the charge levelled against him and convict him accordingly. He is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred) for the conviction, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days.

Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.

I agree.