JUDGMENT

KOSHAL, J.:— By this judgment we shall dispose of Criminal appeals Nos. 606 and 607 of 1979 both of which are directed against a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat dated the 19th January 1979 upholding the conviction recorded against and the sentences imposed upon the three appellants under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act (hereinafter called the Act) in each of two cases by a Judicial Magistrate at Morvi

2. Some of the facts leading to the prosecution of the appellants are not in dispute and may be shortly stated. Appellant No. 3 is the Morvi Vegetable Products Ltd., a limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of vegetable oil and vanaspati in Morvi. Appellant No. 1 is the Managing Director and appellant No. 2 the secretary of appellant No. 3 which is hereinafter referred to as the Company.

On May 2, 1973, Kumari J. G. Mukhi, who is a Government Labour Officer-cum-Minimum Wages Inspector, visited the Companys establishment and found that the following documents which, according to her, the Company was bound to maintain in compliance with the provision of Section 18 of the Act read with the relevant rules of the Gujarat Minimum Wages Rules, 1961, had not been maintained by it.

(a) Muster Roll in Form V as contemplated by Rule 26 (5).

(b) Wage Register in Form IV-A as required by Rule 26 (1).

(c) Attendance cards in Form V-D as provided by Rule 26-B.

(d) Wage slip in Form IV-B prescribed by Rule 26 (2).

In consequence, two complaints were filed against the appellants by N. H. Dave, Labour Officer-cum-Minimum Wages Inspector, Rajkot in the court of the trial Magistrate, each praying that the appellants be convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 22A of the Act. One of the complaints was in respect of the contravention of Rules 26 (1) and 26 (5) while the other embraced that of Rules 26 (2) and 26-B, They were registered as Criminal Cases Nos. 674 and 675 of 1973 respectively.

3. At the trial the appellants pleaded not guilty. Their defence consisted mainly of the following pleas:

(a) Different types of industries are covered by the Act but the Company does not run any such industry and is, therefore, not liable for any contravention of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. According to the prosecution the factory run by the Company is an oil mill, an industry which is certainly covered by the Act. However, the Company is running a mill which manufactures vanaspati and vanaspati is not an oil but is vegetable ghee. Oil extraction is no doubt a major operation carried on by the Company but that operation is merely incidental to the preparation of vanaspati. No separate license for the oil expelling machinery used by the Company has been obtained from the State Government nor has sales tax been paid on the oil extracted by the Company. Vanaspati is manufactured by subjecting oil to the processes of neutralization, bleaching, deodorisation, hardening, hydrogenation, etc. and is a product quite different from oil.

(b) The Company does not carry on the business of sale of the oil manufactured by it except as an operation incidental to the manufacture of vanaspati, e. g., when there is a break-down of the machinery used for converting oil into vanaspati or when oil become surplus on account of a shift in the Government policy in regard to the percentage of oil to be consumed by the Company. In spite of the sale of oil, therefore, the Company remains a vanaspati manufacturer and cannot be considered to be running anoil mill.

(c) Under Section 5 of the Act committees were appointed by the Government from time to time to hold inquires and advise it in respect of fixation or revision of minimum rates of wages for employees in various industries. No representative of the vanaspati industry was taken on any of these committees nor was any questionnaire issued to any of the manufacturers of vanaspati, with the result, that the Company was not bound by the recommendations of those