D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (here -in -after referred to as the Act) wherein writ of prohibition has been sought restraining the respondents from proceeding with penal action against the petitioner. Brief facts which are necessary for decision of this writ petition are that Swaraj Ashram is a Society registered under the U.P. Societies Registration Act and receives financial aid from the Khadi and Village Industries Commission which is a corporation established under a Central Act. It is asserted that the main object of the society is to provide engagement to weavers, spinners etc. in their village homes and to encourage khadi and village industry. It is also stated that it runs on a no profits basis. The functioning of the organization is such that the weavers and spinners do the entire work at their own homes and they are not paid regular wages, but they are given remuneration in accordance to their output. However, having failed to pay the minimum wages to their employees as prescribed in the notification dated 21 -6 -1984, notices have been issued to the petitioner for payment and also penal action for contravening the provisions of the Act. These notices are under challenge in the present writ petition.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since the petitioner organization was neither a commercial establishment nor a shop and the weavers and spinners were not employees in that sense of the word, therefore, the Act or the Notification issued therein would not apply to it. In the writ petition, it has been admitted that the petitioner has established 60 outlets in the State for the purposes of selling Khadi cloth manufactured by its weavers. Even though weavers after lifting cotton from the petitioner's centre weave it in their home and then return the finished product to the Centre but the Act applies even to such employees. Sub -section (1) of Section 2 defines an employee. The definition in the Act includes such out workers. The Apex Court in the case of Lok Nath Nathu Lal v. State of M.P., 1960 (2) LLJ 348, after considering the provisions of the Act has held that such out workers, as the employees of the petitioner, are covered under the Act. Even according to the averments in the writ petition it cannot be denied that the petitioner is not running retail outlets which partake the character of a shop and the finished products are sold there.;