A.V. Prakash Vs. Senior Labour Inspector - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- workmens compensation act, 1923 [c.a. no. 8/1923]. section 19; [k. ramanna, j] employment injury death of driver due to heart attack while on duty - liability of the insurer - fastening the liability on the insurer/appellant to indemnify the owner of the vehicle nexus between the death of the deceased and the nature of work carried out by him held, considering the nature of work carried out by the deceased who was a driver of heavy vehicle and further as there is no previous history of chest pain or hear attack, the same be related to his nature of work and out of stress and strain for continuously driving the heavy vehicle, he suffered heart attack. as such, the nexus betweens the death of the deceased and the nature of work carried out by him has been clearly established. further, the commissioner was right in holding that the death of deceased arose out of and during the course of his employment under respondent no. 6 and has rightly fastened the liability on the appellant/insurer to indemnify the employer/owner of the vehicle. therefore, the order under challenge does not require any interference. order1. though this appears for admission, it is taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the sides.2. the petitioners herein are accused in c. c. no. 20434/93 on the file of the ix additional chief metropolitan magistrate, bangalore. the said case was registered on a complaint lodged by the senior labour inspector under section 22a of the minimum wages act, 1948 (for short 'the act'). the accused have filed this petition contending that the provisions of the act are not applicable to them and that there was no scope for the senior labour inspector to expect compliance of the various provisions of the act by them and the learned magistrate was act by them and the learned magistrate was not right in registering the case and issuing process on the basis of such a complaint.3. as per the averments in the complaint, the accused person are partners of associate detective & security services and they are therefore employers within the meaning of section 2(e) of the act, in respect of the persons employed in the said establishment.4. the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioners is that this type of establishment run for rendering detective and security service is not one of the scheduled employments within the meaning of the act and further the state of karnataka has also not issued any notification as per section 27 of the act, adding this employment to either of the schedules of the act and therefore the provisions of act have of application to them.5. to understand the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, we should have an idea of the definition of employer and also section 3 of the act as also part i and part ii of the schedule to the act.section 2(e) of the act reads as hereunder :'employer' means any person who employs, whether directly or through another person, or whether directly or through another person, or whether on behalf of himself or any other person, one or more employees in any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this act, and includes except in sub-section (3) of section 26.section 3(i)(a) reads as hereunder : '3. fixing of minimum rates of wages - (1) the appropriate government shall, in the manner hereinafter provided,- (a) fix the minimum rates of wages payable to employees employed in an employment specified in part i of part ii of the schedule and in an employment added to either part by notification under section 27 : provided that the appropriate government may, in respect of employees employed in an employment specified in part ii of the schedule, instead of fixing minimum rates of wages under this cause for the whole state, fix such rates for a part of the state or for any specified class or classes of such employment in the whole state or part thereof; ' 'part i 1. employment in any woollen carpet making or shawl weaving establishment. 2. employment in any rice mill, flour mill or dal mill. 3. employment in any tobacco (including bidi making) manufactory. 4. employment in any plantation, that is to say, any estate which is maintained for the purpose of growing cinchona, rubber, tea or coffee. 5. employment in any oil mill. 6. employment under any local authority. 7. employment on the construction or maintenance of roads or in building operations. 8. employment in stone breaking or stone crushing. 9. employment in any lac manufactory. 10. employment in any mica works. 11. employment in public motor transport. 12. employment in tanneries and leather manufactory. (employment in gypsum mines. employment in barytes mines. employment in bauxite mines.) (employment in manganese mines.) (employment in the maintenance of buildings and employment in the construction and maintenance of runways) (employment in china clay mines. employment in kyanite mines.) (employment in copper mines.) (employment in clay mines covered under the mines act, 1952 (35 of 1952) (employment in white clay mines) (employment in stone mines.) part ii 1. employment in agriculture, that is to say, in any form of farming, including the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairy farming, the production, cultivation, growing and harvesting of any agricultural or horticultural commodity, the raising of live-stock, bees or poultry, and any practice performed by a farmer or on a farm as incidental to or in conjunction with farm operations (including any forestry or timbering operations and the preparation for market and delivery to storage or to market of farm produce).' 6. even a bare reading of section 3(1)(a) of the act, makes it very clear that the appropriate government is enabled to fix the minimum rates of wages payable to the employees employed in an employment specified in part i of part ii of the schedule or an employment added to either part by notification under section 27. it is conceded by the learned high court government pleader that no notification has been issued by the state government under section 27 of the act, to add the particular type of employment, namely the detective and security services to either of the parts of the schedule to the act. a perusal of part i and part ii of the schedule makes it also clear that even remotely the detective and security services cannot in any way be linked to any of the scheduled employment detailed in parts i and ii.7. even the definition of employer also makes it clear that it is restrictive definition and only a person who employs one or more employees in any scheduled employment would be the employer within the meaning of the act and no doubt it includes the employers as detailed in the various subsection of section 2(e). the security and detective services is again not one of the employments detailed in these sub-sections. in the absence of this type of services rendered by the accused being included in any of the parts of the schedule to the act and in the absence of the same being mentioned in any of the sub-sections of section 2(e) (i) to (iv) of the act and further when undisputedly, no notification has been issued by the state government under section 27 of the act to bring this type of establishment within the purview of the provisions of the act, it is clear that there was absolutely no scope for any one to contend that the accused ought to have complied with the provisions of the act or the non-compliance amounts to an offence. in that view of the matter, it is clear that the entire proceedings initiated before the learned magistrate by the complainant are misconceived and are liable to be quashed.8. in the result, the proceedings before the learned magistrate are quashed and the petition is allowed.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Though this appears for admission, it is taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the sides.

2. The petitioners herein are accused in C. C. No. 20434/93 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The said case was registered on a complaint lodged by the Senior Labour Inspector under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). The accused have filed this petition contending that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to them and that there was no scope for the Senior Labour Inspector to expect compliance of the various provisions of the Act by them and the learned Magistrate was Act by them and the learned Magistrate was not right in registering the case and issuing process on the basis of such a complaint.

3. As per the averments in the complaint, the accused person are partners of Associate Detective & Security Services and they are therefore employers within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act, in respect of the persons employed in the said establishment.

4. The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners is that this type of establishment run for rendering Detective and Security Service is not one of the scheduled employments within the meaning of the Act and further the State of Karnataka has also not issued any Notification as per Section 27 of the Act, adding this employment to either of the Schedules of the Act and therefore the provisions of Act have of application to them.

5. To understand the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, we should have an idea of the definition of employer and also Section 3 of the Act as also Part I and Part II of the Schedule to the Act.

Section 2(e) of the Act reads as hereunder :

'employer' means any person who employs, whether directly or through another person, or whether directly or through another person, or whether on behalf of himself or any other person, one or more employees in any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, and includes except in sub-section (3) of Section 26.

Section 3(i)(a) reads as hereunder :

'3. Fixing of minimum rates of wages - (1) The appropriate Government shall, in the manner hereinafter provided,-

(a) fix the minimum rates of wages payable to employees employed in an employment specified in Part I of Part II of the Schedule and in an employment added to either Part by notification under Section 27 :

Provided that the appropriate Government may, in respect of employees employed in an employment specified in Part II of the Schedule, instead of fixing minimum rates of wages under this cause for the whole State, fix such rates for a part of the State or for any specified class or classes of such employment in the whole State or part thereof; '

'PART I 1. Employment in any woollen carpet making or shawl weaving establishment.

2. Employment in any rice mill, flour mill or dal mill.

3. Employment in any tobacco (including bidi making) manufactory.

4. Employment in any plantation, that is to say, any estate which is maintained for the purpose of growing cinchona, rubber, tea or coffee.

5. Employment in any oil mill.

6. Employment under any local authority.

7. Employment on the construction or maintenance of roads or in building operations.

8. Employment in stone breaking or stone crushing.

9. Employment in any lac manufactory.

10. Employment in any mica works.

11. Employment in public motor transport.

12. Employment in tanneries and leather manufactory.

(Employment in gypsum mines. Employment in barytes mines. Employment in bauxite mines.) (Employment in manganese mines.) (Employment in the maintenance of buildings and employment in the construction and maintenance of runways) (Employment in China Clay mines. Employment in Kyanite mines.) (Employment in Copper mines.) (Employment in clay mines covered under the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952) (Employment in white clay mines) (Employment in stone mines.)

PART II 1. Employment in agriculture, that is to say, in any form of farming, including the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairy farming, the production, cultivation, growing and harvesting of any agricultural or horticultural commodity, the raising of live-stock, bees or poultry, and any practice performed by a farmer or on a farm as incidental to or in conjunction with farm operations (including any forestry or timbering operations and the preparation for market and delivery to storage or to market of farm produce).'

6. Even a bare reading of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act, makes it very clear that the appropriate Government is enabled to fix the minimum rates of wages payable to the employees employed in an employment specified in Part I of Part II of the Schedule or an employment added to either part by notification under Section 27. It is conceded by the learned High Court Government pleader that no notification has been issued by the State government under Section 27 of the Act, to add the particular type of employment, namely the Detective and Security services to either of the Parts of the Schedule to the Act. A perusal of Part I and Part II of the Schedule makes it also clear that even remotely the Detective and Security Services cannot in any way be linked to any of the scheduled employment detailed in Parts I and II.

7. Even the definition of employer also makes it clear that it is restrictive definition and only a person who employs one or more employees in any scheduled employment would be the employer within the meaning of the Act and no doubt it includes the employers as detailed in the various subsection of Section 2(e). The Security and Detective services is again not one of the employments detailed in these sub-sections. In the absence of this type of services rendered by the accused being included in any of the Parts of the Schedule to the Act and in the absence of the same being mentioned in any of the sub-sections of Section 2(e) (i) to (iv) of the Act and further when undisputedly, no notification has been issued by the State Government under Section 27 of the Act to bring this type of establishment within the purview of the provisions of the Act, it is clear that there was absolutely no scope for any one to contend that the accused ought to have complied with the provisions of the Act or the non-compliance amounts to an offence. In that view of the matter, it is clear that the entire proceedings initiated before the learned Magistrate by the complainant are misconceived and are liable to be quashed.

8. In the result, the proceedings before the learned Magistrate are quashed and the Petition is allowed.