N.SANKARANARAYANA Vs. STATE
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Click here to view full judgement.
RAMASWAMI, J. -
(1.) THESE are two connected revision rises which have been filed against the convictions and sentences of the learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Kollegal, in C.C. Nos. 152 and 153 of 1951.
(2.) THE facts are: The area occupied by Kollegal in Coimbatore district is served by the Mysore railway. Kollegal itself has no railway station and Maddur is the nearest railway station. Therefore, an out -agency is working 'in Kollegal for the purpose of booking goods there for being sent to Maddur railway station. This out -agency at Kollegal has been taken by Royal Motor Service, Kollegal, through one Dr. Mahadevan. But it appears that it is managed by the petitioner before us who is stated to be a brother of that Dr. Mahadevan.
This establishment in Kollegal wasvisited by the Assistant Inspector of Labour.Gobichettipalayam and he found that thisout -agency did not maintain a register ofwages for the persons employed in it, a register of employment in the prescribed formE or F or a notice in the prescribed form G ora register in the prescribed form H or a register of holidays and leave in the prescribedform K for persons employed under this petitioner in this out -agency. It was further foundthat this petitioner failed to exhibit thenotices containing the extracts of the MadrasShops and Establishments Act, 1947, and therules, 1948, in English and Tamil and that hefailed to maintain and produce them whendemanded by the Assistant Inspector ofLabour.
(3.) IN addition the Labour Inspector also found that the timings of work were not in consonance with the provisions of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act and what is more one particular individual was being employed constantly exceeding the spread over periods.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.