Skip to content


New Sutlej Transport Co. Private Ltd. Vs. State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1961CriLJ398
AppellantNew Sutlej Transport Co. Private Ltd.
RespondentState
Excerpt:
.....the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party does not know about the making of..........of employees engaged in public motor transport and requires every employer to issue a card in the form prescribed, which card is to be kept in the custody of the employee during the month and thereafter is to be returned to the employer who is to preserve the same for a period of three years.entries in this card have to be made every day in the presence of the employee by the employer or any person authorised by him in this behalf- form x prescribed under this rule, besides giving the information about the name of the employer, the garage or the depot and the name of the employee, requires that the reporting time, relieving time, rest intervals and over-time hours should be entered therein for each day,3. the plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this rule is.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Harbans Singh, J.

1. This is a revision against an order of a learned Magistrate, confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, convicting the petitioner, who is the Managing Director of the New Sutlej Transport Company with its head office at Jullundur, under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for breach of Rule 26-A of the Minimum Wages Rules 1950(wrongly mentioned as 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Rules.) He was fined Rs. 5.

2. According to the report of the Labour-Inspector, no duty-cards had been issued to the drivers and conductors as prescribed under Rule 26-A. This rule was added by a notification No. 2925-S-Lab-58/19244, dated the 10th/17th March, 1958 by the Governor of Punjab in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 30 of the Act. The rule applies only in respect of employees engaged in public motor transport and requires every employer to issue a card in the form prescribed, which card is to be kept in the custody of the employee during the month and thereafter is to be returned to the employer who is to preserve the same for a period of three years.

Entries in this card have to be made every day in the presence of the employee by the employer or any person authorised by him in this behalf- Form X prescribed under this rule, besides giving the information about the name of the employer, the garage or the depot and the name of the employee, requires that the reporting time, relieving time, rest intervals and over-time hours should be entered therein for each day,

3. The plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this rule is ultra vires and goes, beyond the provisions of the Act. Section 30(1) of the Act is in the usual form giving general powers to the Government to make rules 'for carrying out the purposes of this Act'. Sub-section (2) lays down certain matters on which, without prejudice to the generality of the power given under Sub-section (1) the appropriate Government may make rules. Sub-clause (i) runs as follows:

Prescribe the form of registers and records to be maintained and the particulars to be entered in such registers and records.

The impugned Rule 26-A and the form attached therewith would certainly fall under the category of

records to be maintained and the particulars to be entered in such records.

4. The point to be seen, however, is whether the rule is meant to carry out any of the purposes of the Act. The object of the Act is to ensure the minimum wages to an employee and also to prescribe the maximum period of working which shall be considered as a normal working day, and further to see that extra payment is made for any overtime spent. Section 13 of the Act deals with the fixing of hours for a normal working day and Section 14 with the overtime. The object of Rule 26-A and the form prescribed there under, is to facilitate the ascertainment of the period for which a driver or a conductor has worked during the day and the overtime spent by him.

This obviously furthers the object of the Act land the rule in question can be taken to be for the carrying out of the purposes of the Act.

5. Reference was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to Section 18 of the Act. Sub-section (1) is in general terms which requires every employer to maintain such registers and recordsp2

giving such particulars of employees employed by him, the work performed by them, the wages paid to them. * * * * and such other particulars and in such form as may be prescribed.

Sub-section (3) provides that the appropriate Government may, by rules, provide

for the issue of wage books or wage slips * * and prescribe the manner in which entries shall be made and authenticated in such wage books or wage slips by the employer or his agent.

The learned counsel urged that in view of the provisions of this Sub-section, the Government is not authorised to prescribe the issue of any other type of documents to the employees,

I am afraid, it is not possible to accept this contention. Sub-section (3) deals only with the wage books and wage slips. Rule. 26 deals with the issue of such wage slips. In the ordinary trades, the provision of wage books and wage slips may be sufficient but probably the Government felt that in the case of transport workers, who move from place to place, that is not enough and that they should be provided with another document giving the time at which they reported or were relieved and the Overtime spent by them. Such rule-making power is not only preserved by Sub-section (1) of Section 30, but is specifically given under Sub-clause (i) of Sub-section (2) of Section 30, as stated above.

6. Having given my best consideration to the point, I find that there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel and Rule 26-A is not ultra vires the Act, and the conviction of the accused is well based. No arguments were addressed that the sentence is excessive. This revision is, consequently, dismissed


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //