Nathuram Shukla vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 May, 1959

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Nathuram Shukla vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 May, 1959
Equivalent citations: AIR 1960 MP 174, 1960 CriLJ 832, 1960 (1) FLR 476, (1960) ILLJ 784 MP
Author: K Pandey
Bench: K Pandey
ORDER K.L. Pandey, J.

1. This application in revision is directed against the conviction of the applicant (Nathuram under
Section 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.

2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Nathuram is the manager of 'Radhakishan Narayandas
Bidi Karkhana' situate at 280, South Miloniganj Road, Jabalpur, in which, at the 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.

3. Nathuram admitted that, on 3rd September 1956, when B. Section 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.

4. The prosecution case was that Nathuram was an employer of a scheduled, employment, namely,
the making of Bidis to which the Act applied. The defence was that the Act did not apply to the
establishment where Bidis were not actually made.

5. A.K. Banerji, Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, accepted the prosecution case, repelled the defence
and convicted Nathuram, whose revision was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Jabalpur,

6. The point arising for consideration is whether Nathuram was an employer with the meaning of
the Act in respect of the employment in which workers in the Radhakishan Narayandas 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. 584-451 XXIII dated 2 March 1956 that the
minimum rates of wages fixed under Sections 3(1)(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

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/571516/ 1

 Nathuram Shukla vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 May, 1959

the Act.

7. The definition of employer occurring in Section 2e. of the Act is as follows:--

"(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 minimum
rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, any person 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 of the local
authority;

(iv) in any other case where there is carried on any scheduled employment 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
under Section 22 of that Act.

8. 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.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/571516/ 2