Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. In this appeal preferred by the State Government, the challenge is to an order of acquittal made by a Magistrate of Haveri in a prosecution commenced under S. 22A of the Minimum Wages Act (Central Act 11 of 1948).

2. The accused was the secretary of the Haveri Municipality, Haveri, constituted under the Bombay District Municipalities Act. The accusation was threefold. The first was that the naka clerks in the employment of the municipality were not allowed the weekly day of rest enjoined by rule 24 of the Mysore Minimum Wages Rules, 1958. The second was that there was a failure to maintain an overtime register showing payments of overtime wages in disobedience to rule 28(2). The third was that the wage slips in form VI were not issued to those clerks as required by rule 29(2).

6. The expression "scheduled employment" as stated in S. 2(g) means an employment specified in the schedule, or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment. It is not disputed that the employment in the municipality is a scheduled employment within the meaning of those words occurring in Cls. (e) and (g) of S. 2, since serial No. 6 in Part I has reference to employment under any local authority which the Haveri Municipality was.

But it was urged before the Magistrate that even so, the Haveri Municipality did not become an employer since in respect of employment under it, minimum rates of wages had not been fixed. It is obvious that even if the employment is a scheduled employment, a person becomes an employer only if in respect of such scheduled employment, minimum rates of wages have been fixed under the Act as stated in S. 2(e).

7. Now those minimum rates of wages can be fixed by the appropriate Government in the exercise of power created by S. 3(1)(a) of the Act. That clause of the Act as it stood when the prosecution commenced reads :

"3. (1) The appropriate Government shall, in the manner hereinafter provided -
(a) fix the minimum rates of wages payable to employees employed in an employment specified in Part I or II of the schedule and in an employment added to either part by notification under S. 27."

8. It is not disputed that when the limits of the Haveri Municipality were within the State of Bombay a notification was issued by the Government of the State of Bombay on 30 October 1954 fixing minimum rates of wages for the employees working under the Haveri Municipality.

There was, however, an amendment made to this section in the year 1954 by the Minimum Wages (Amendment) Act, 1954 (Central Act 26 of 1954). After it was so amended Sub-section (1) of S. 3 of the principal Act read as follows :

"The appropriate Government shall, in the manner hereinafter provided -
(a) fix the minimum rate of wages payable to employees employed -
(1) in an employment specified, in Part I of the schedule at the commencement of this Act, before 31 December 1954."

11. So it became possible for the Government of the State of Bombay, after this amendment to fix the minimum rates of wages in respect of employment under the Haveri Municipality before 31 December 1954, since the amended section extended the period for the fixation of those minimum rates of wages in that way. It is not disputed that in the exercise of that power, the Government of the State of Bombay did fix the minimum rates of wages by notification made on 20 October 1954. With such fixation, the Haveri Municipality became an employer within the meaning of Clause (e) of S. 2 of the Act and was under a duty to obey the relevant provisions of the rules.