1.The petitioner was prosecuted by the Assistant Inspector of Labour, Tirunelveli, for non.exhibition of the notice stating the hours of work in Form No. 5 as prescribed by Rule 27 of the Madras Motor Transport Workers' Rule3, 19G5. Section 36 of the Motor Transport Workers' Act, 1961 states that 'no Court shall take cognisance of an offence punishable under the Act unless the complaint thereof is made within 3 months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector.' It was contended before the trial Court that since the complaint was not filed by the Inspector as contemplated by 8. 36 of the Act, it was not sustainable. Section 4 (l) of the Act enables the State Government to appoint for the State by notification in the Official Gazette a duly qualified person to be the Chief Inspector and as many duly qualified persons to be Inspectors subordinate to the Chief Inspector as it thinks fit. By a notification dated 25 1-11)67 (3. 0. Mis. No. 70) the State Government had appointed Assistant Inspectors also Inspectors for the purposes of this Act, This they have done by virtue of the powers conferred by Sub-section (l) of Section 4 of the Motor Transport Workers' Act of 19G1. Therefore, the complaint is sustainable. The conviction is confirmed. The sentence is not excessive. The revision case fails and the same is dismissed.