State Government has jurisdiction alone to fix minimum wages and frame rules.

The question for consideration in these two appeals is whether the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 , or the Andhra Pradesh Minimum Wages Rules, 1960 that are applicable to the shops of the respondent?

2. It is sufficient if I state the facts in Crl. Appeal No. 146 of 1980. The Assistant Inspector of Labour, Kurnool-II circle and Inspector under the Minimum Wages Act, inspected the shop of the respondent at Kurnool on 30th January, 1979, at 6-55 p. m. The respondent, the owner of the shop was present. The Officer demanded the production of the wage slips of the employees for the period September, 1978 to December, 1978. The respondent produced wage slips issued upto August, 1978. Then the Assistant Inspector of Labour prepared the inspection report. Exhibit P-1 on the spot and obtained the signature of the employer on it and also noted the remarks in the visitor's book maintained under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act. He issued inspection order-caw-show cause notice, dated 31st January, 1979, which was received by the respondent on 17th February, 1979. Since there was no reply, a complaint was filed against the respondent on 24th April, 1979, after obtaining the approval of the Labour Officer, Kurnool. The respondent was prosecuted for contravention of rule 30(2) read with rule 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Minimum Wages Rules, 1960.

3. The respondent denied the prosecution version as spoken to by the Assistant Inspector of Labour (P. W. 1).

4. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent on the ground that only one show cause notice was issued to the respondent and no opportunity was given to him to rectify the defects as pointed out in the inspection notes. It was also observed that the Assistant Inspector of Labour did not choose to visit the shop again so as to ascertain whether the defects pointed out by him were rectified by the employer or not. The Magistrate held that the prosecution did not comply with the requirements of rule 26-B (2) of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950, and therefore he acquitted the respondent. Questioning his order the Assistant Inspector of Labour has filed this appeal.

5. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is the State Rules that are applicable, but not the Central Rules , and the learned Magistrate erred in holding that rule 26-B (2) of Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 is applicable and acquitting the respondent.

6. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that when the Assistant Inspector of Labour himself had thought fit to invoke rule 26-B (2) of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 it is not for him now to contend that, that rule has no application and even otherwise since the offence has taken place on 30th January, 1979, more than two years back, it is not desirable to interfere with the order of acquittal.

7. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned Public Prosecutor, it is necessary to refer to relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is a Central Act. It was passed for fixing minimum rates of wages in certain employments. Section 2(b) defines “appropriate Government” as meaning:

“(i) in relation to any schedule employment carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or a railway administration, or in relation to a mine, oil field or major port, or any corporation established by a Central Act, the Central Government, and

(ii) in relation to any other scheduled employment, the State Government.

Section 2(g) defines “Scheduled employment” as meaning: “an employment specified in the schedule, or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment”.

Section 27 empowers the appropriate Government to add to the Schedule. In the Schedule, as it stands today in the additions made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, item 25 relates to employment in any shop and commercial establishments not being employment in any Bank or employm