JUDGEMENT - F.I. REBELLO, J. :---These petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as common questions of law arise in all these matters.

2.The petitioner in each of the petitions is the Executive Director of the National Organic Chemical Industries Limited (for short NOCIL). In the complaint he is described as the occupier of the factory. The respondent No. 1 has filed complaints which are pending against the petitioner in the Court of the 1st Judicial Magistrate, Thane. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under sections 18(1), 18(3), 18(2), 19(4) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 read with Rules, 27(1), 27(2), 22 and 28 of the Maharashtra Minimum Wages Rules, 1963. Apart from the petitioner the contractor was also joined as an accused.

3.In the complaint, the complainant has alleged that NOCIL had violated the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as also the provisions of the Maharashtra Minimum Wages Rules, 1953 by not maintaining registers in respect of the employees engaged through contractor to do work in the establishment. It was the contention of the complainant that the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is applicable, as the establishment engages labour to do work which is classified as scheduled employment under the said Act. The learned Magistrate by order dated 10th October, 1995 has convicted the accused No. 1, the contractor on his plea of guilt for offences punishable under sections 18(1), 18(3), 18(2) and 19(4) of the Minimum Wages Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 150/- on each count respectively. The Court further has directed the case to proceed against accused Nos. 2 and 3. Petitioner who is the original accused No. 2 has challenged the respective order in each complaint.

4.It is the contention of the petitioner herein that the National Organic Chemical Industries Limited engages Contract Labour through contractor as per the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The obligation to maintain the records and registers in terms of the rules framed in respect of contract labour is of the contractor who is the employer of the contract workers and not NOCIL and that the 1st respondent the Inspector under Minimum Wages Act erroneously charged the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is on these grounds that the petitioner has approached this Court to quash the proceedings against him. At any rate the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not Manager of the factory and in fact has been described as occupier in the complaint and the complaint should be rejected on that count also.

5.Developing his first argument the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner contends that under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, in case where contract labour is engaged, it is the contractor who has to maintain the record/registers. It is further contended that a perusal of the definition of employer in section 2 Clause (e) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 will lead to such a conclusion. It is then contended that under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1971 in terms of the Rules framed thereunder and more particularly Rule 59 all the registers mentioned therein have to be maintained by the contractor. The registers and records to be maintained are the same as to be maintained under the Minimum Wages Act and the rules framed thereunder. Counsel contends, that once the Minimum Wages Act requires that those registers are to be maintained by the contractor then in that event the same are deemed to be registers/records for the purpose of the rules framed under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. The learned Counsel further contends that this will indicate that it is the contractor who has to maintain the registers/records as he is the employer and under section 29 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, every principal employer and every contractor shall mai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document