Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner was convicted by the Industrial Tribunal and Special First Class Magistrate, Alleppey, under S.22 A of the Minimum Wages Act of 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for not maintaining as provided by the Rules framed under the Act certain registers in respect of one Sreevas Tourist Home he is conducting at Trivandrum and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/-. For conviction under S.22A, which reads as follows: "Any employer who contravenes any provision of this Act or of any rule or order made thereunder shall, if no other penalty is provided for such contravention by this Act. be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.". the revision petitioner should be an employer, The word "employer" is defined in S.2 (e) of the Act as follows: "employer' means any person who employs, 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" For a person being treated as employer it is necessary that he should have employed persons in a scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under the Act. Item number 21 in the Schedule is "Employment in shops and establishments (including hotels and restaurants)". According to the prosecution Sreevas Tourist Home is an establishment coming in item 21 in the Schedule. Even if it is an establishment, for the petitioner being treated as an employer under S.2 (e) of the Act it is necessary that the establishment should be one for which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under the Act. The notification showing the minimum rates of wages under the Act is that published in the Gazette dated 27 61967. There the rates of wages for employees in hotels and restaurants have been mentioned but not in lodging houses. Therefore if Sreevas Tourist Home is only a lodging house the provisions of the Act cannot be applied to it. 2. The evidence in the case only shows that for some of the lodgers at their request the attenders in Sreeves Tourist Home bring food there after purchasing the same from outside. Therefore if Sreevas Tourist Home is only a lodging house the provisions of the Act cannot be applied to it. 2. The evidence in the case only shows that for some of the lodgers at their request the attenders in Sreeves Tourist Home bring food there after purchasing the same from outside. Food is not prepared there The evidence is insufficient to show that Sreevas Tourist Home is anything other than a lodging house. It is not a hotel or restaurant. 3. The revision petitioner cannot be considered as an employer as contemplated by S.2 (e) of the Act. Consequently the conviction and sentence against him are set aside and this revision petition is allowed. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him.