STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus MOHANLAL DEVICHAND SHAH

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 461 · Decided: 23-03-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
E 
F 
G 
H 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
MOHANLAL DEVICHAND SHAH 
March 23, 1965 
[K. N. WANCHOO, J. R. MUDHOLKAR ANDS. M. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 1948), s. 2(b) 
Part I 
Entry 8-Stone breaking or stone-crushing in a quarry-Jur1sd1ctwn 
whether of Central or State Government-Competency to file com-
plaint. 
The Labour Inspector, appointed under the Minimum Wages 
Act, 1948 filed two complaints before the Judicial Magistrate al!eg-
ing that the respondent, doing quarrying 
operation wmk, had 
contravened certain provisions of the Minimum 
Wages 
(Control) 
Rules, 1950. The respondent, inter alia, submitted that the Inspector 
wos not authorised to file the complaint, and only an Inspector 
appointed by the State Government was competent to file the com-
plaint. The Judicial Magistrate held that the word "mine" in sub-cl. 
(i) of s. 2(b) of the Act, does not include a stone quarry and there-
fore, the appropriate government was the State Government and 
not the Central Government. The appellants' appeals were dismis-
sed by the High Court. In appeal to this Court. 
HELD: 
An examination of the definition of "appropriate 
Government" in s. 2(b) of the Minimum Wages Act in the context 
and background of GDvernment of India Act, 1935, and the Mines 
Act, 1923, shows that the word "mine" in s. 2(b)(i) includes quarries. 
Also stone breaking or stone crushing in a quarry is within Entry 
8 in Part I of the Schedule of the Act. Since the employment in 
stone breaking or stone crushing is in a quarry, it is within the 
jurisdiction of the Centrc:-.1 Governm-ent, because it is a scheduled 
employment in a rn.ine v.:1ithin the meaning of s. 2(lf'(i}. Therefore, 
the Inspector appointed under the Act 
was competent to file the 
complaints. [465F: 466A-B, D] · 
Madhya Pradesh Mi.neral Industry Association v. The Regional 
Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur, [1960] 3 S.C.R. 476, applied. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos. 
198 and 199 of 1963. 
Appeals from the judgment and order dated February 4, 
1963, of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 779 & 
780 of 1962. 
S. C. Patwardhan, B. R. G. K. Achar for R. H. Dheber, for 
the appellant. 
Avadh Behari, for respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, J. These are two appeals by certificate, granted by 
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay against its judgment 
dated February 4, 1963, in Criminal Appeals Nos. 779 and 780 of 
1962, By this judgment the High Court affirmed the order of 
L/P(N )4SCI-3 
461 
SUPREME COUR'r REPORTS 
(1965] 3 8,C,R. 
acquittal passed against the respondent by the Judicial Magistrate, 
A 
First Class, Vadagaon (Mawal). 
The relevant facts are as follows : 
The Labour Inspector 
(Central), Bombay-I, appointed under the Minimum Wages Act 
(XI of 1948) (hereinafter called the Act) by the Central Govern-
ment filed two complaints in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 
B 
alleging that the respondent had contravened certain provisions of 
the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950. It was alleged that 
the respondent was doing quarrying operation work in quarry 
survey Nos. 23(1) Kusegaon village near Lonavala, and while car-
rying on this quarrying operation work he, failed to observe 
certain provisions in the Rules. 
The respondent submitted a c 
written statement admitting the facts but he contended, inter alia, 
that the Inspector was not authorised to file the complaint and it 
was only an inspector appointed by the Maharashtra State who was 
competent to file a complaint. The Judicial Magistrate, treating 
this as a preliminary objection, came to the conclusion that the 
Inspector was not entitled to file the complaint. According to him, D 
the word "mine" in sub-cl. (i) of s. 2(b) of the Act does not include 
a stone quarry and, therefore, the appropriate Government was 
the State Government and not the Central Government. 
There 
upon he acquitted the accused of the offence under s. 22A, read 
with s. 18, of the Act and for contravening certain rules of the 
Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950. 
E 
The State then filed two appeals before the High Court. The 
High Court also came to the conclusion that the Inspector was 
not competent to file the complaints but the reasoning of the High 
Court was different. It was of the opinion that "a stone quarry 
can fall within the category of a mine as defined in the Mines Act 
of 1952 or the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) 
F

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.