1. The petitioner who is a hotelier in Hiriyur was convicted by the magistrate of an offence punishable under S. 30(1) of the Mysore Shops and Commercial Establishments Act for disobedience to the provisions of S. 12(1) of that Act. The case of the prosecution was that the accused conducted the business in his hotel on 8 February, 1967 which was a weekly holiday for his hotel. The plea of the accused was that, although Wednesday was a notified weekly holiday for his hotel, there has been an alteration made by him in consequence of which Thursdays became weekly holidays and Wednesdays became working days. He asserted that intimation about this alteration was transmitted to the concerned labour inspector under S. 12(1) of the Act.
2. The magistrate was of the view that it was necessary for the petitioner to notify the inspector about the alteration he made, before he gave effect to the alteration. The magistrate thought that, since the petitioner was running his hotel on 8 February, 1967 and intimation about the alteration was not given to the labour inspector until 9 February, 1967, the alteration was not a permissible alteration.
3. It is clear that the magistrate was not right in taking this view. Section 12(1) reads :
'Every establishment shall remain closed for one day in the week. The employer shall fix such date at the beginning of the year, notify it to the inspector and specify it in a notice prominently displayed in a conspicuous place in the establishment. The employer shall not alter such date more often than once in three months, shall notify the alteration to the inspector, and shall make the necessary change in the notice in the establishment.'
4. It was not the case of the prosecution that the change made by the petitioner was made before the expiry of a period of three months after the weekly holiday had been previously notified, nor was it the prosecution case that the necessary change had not been incorporated in the notice which had to be displayed in the establishment. It was not also the prosecution case that the alteration was not notified to the inspector as required by this sub section.
5. The only allegation made by the prosecution was that the petitioner kept his hotel open on 8 February, 1967 which was a Wednesday, and that he had committed an offence since Wednesdays were notified holidays. The magistrate did not record a finding that the alteration alleged by the petitioner had not in fact been made by him. The only ground on which he based the conviction was that intimation about the alteration was not transmitted to the inspector until after the petitioner gave effect to the alteration.
6. Section 12(1) does not insist upon previous intimation to the inspector when all alteration is made by a hotelier. On the contrary, the words 'shall notify the alteration to the inspector' occurring in that sub-section indicate that that intimation has to be given only after the alteration has been made and, since S. 12(1) does not state no alteration made under its provisions shall not become effective until after intimation has been given to the inspector, the alteration takes effect from the moment it is made.
7. In consequence of the alteration made by the petitioner, Wednesdays which were notified weekly holidays became working days and Thursdays became notified weekly holidays. The efficacy of the alteration to no extent depended upon the transmission of intimation to the inspector.
8. So I allow this revision petition and set aside the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed on him. I acquit the petitioner of the offence with which he was charged. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded.