Judgment D.P. Sinha, J. The petitioner, who is said to be the Manager of the Jharkhand Colliery, has been convicted by a First Class Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh under section 22 of the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, for violation of rules 4, 5 and 19 of the said rules and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.20/- and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for five days. 2. The short facts of the case are these. The opposite party, who was a Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) posted at Hazaribagh had been appointed an Inspector within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and his jurisdiction extended over the territory in question. On the 19th of June, 1970 he inspected the establishment relating to the Jharkhand Colliery under which one Shiva Ram Singh was the Managing Director of a firm of contractors, namely Shiva Ram Singh and Co. (P) Ltd. and the petitioner was the Manager of the said Colliery. As a result of his inspection, the Labour Enforcement Officer found that the Register of Wages required to be maintained under rule 5 and the Register of deductions for damages and loss required to be maintained under rule 4 and the Register of Advances required to be maintained under rule 19 of the Rules were not maintained. A copy of his inspection report along with a, show cause notice was served upon Shiva Ram Singh and .the ,petitioner and since no satisfactory reply was received Labour Enforcement officer (the opposite party) filed a complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Hazalibagh, whereupon, they were put on trial. Shiva Ram Singh pleaded guilty and there upon he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default thereof to undergo "imprisonment for one month. The petitioner denied having committed the offence and he contested the matter with the result already mentioned. 3. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that under the rules he was not the person, who was responsible for the maintenance of the registers and that therefore, the learned Magistrate committed an error of law in holding him guilty and convicting him under rule 22, of the Rules. The contention appears to be well founded. 3. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that under the rules he was not the person, who was responsible for the maintenance of the registers and that therefore, the learned Magistrate committed an error of law in holding him guilty and convicting him under rule 22, of the Rules. The contention appears to be well founded. It would appear that so far as rules 4 and 19 of the Rules are concerned, they do not expressly mention as to who shall maintain the registers referred to there in. Rule 5, however, provides that Register of Wages in Form III shall be maintained and kept at the work spot, or as near it as possible, by every employer in proof of payment of wages and further that the rates of wage, for all classes of workers shall be entered at the beginning of the Register. 4. Since rule 5 appears to be in the positive form in so far as it mentions the person who is to maintain and keep the Register, it would be convenient to deal with the point at issue with reference to that rule first. The word 'employer' has been defined in item (g) of rule 2 to mean the owner of the mine and to include a contractor, an agent or manager or any other person responsible under Section 3 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 for payment of wages and also to include in the case of a deceased employer, his legal representative. The word 'manager' has been defined under item (ii) of rule 2 (h) of the Rules to mean the person appointed under section 17 of the Mines Act, 1952 to discharge the function of a manager. On a reference to section 3 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, it would appear that the responsibility for payment of wages to persons, employed by the employer, of all wages required to be paid under that Act, is of the employer. In the case on hand, it appears that the responsibility for payment of the wages to the person employed by the contractors, namely, M/s. Shiva Ram Singh and Co. (P) Ltd. was on the Managing Director of that firm. In the case on hand, it appears that the responsibility for payment of the wages to the person employed by the contractors, namely, M/s. Shiva Ram Singh and Co. (P) Ltd. was on the Managing Director of that firm. As such, it was the Managing Director, who was required to maintain the Register of Wages in Form III and not the petitioner, who is not alleged to be responsible for making the payment of wages to the persons employed by the firm of contractors. 5. The same considerations apply so far as rules 4 and 19 of the Rules are concerned. Rule 4 requires a Register of deductions for damages or loss to be maintained up to date in Form II and kept at the work-spot or as near to it as possible. It further requires that where no deduction has been made from the wages of any employee in a wage period, a 'nil' entry shall be made cross the body of the Register at the end of the wage period, indicating also in precise terms the wage period for which the 'nil' entry relates. These provisions clearly indicate that this register was also to be maintained by the person, who was responsible for making the payment to the persons employed by him, as deduction could be made obviously by the person who was in a position to make the payment. There can, therefore, be little doubt that this register was to be maintained by the contractors. 6. Rule 19 (3) of the Rules requires that amount of all advances sanctioned and the repayments thereof shall be entered in' a register in Form VI which shall be maintained in English and in the language spoken by the majority of workers. This sub-rule indicates' that the person responsible for sanctioning the advances and entitled to receive the repayments thereof was required to maintain the register. It has already been pointed out that in the case on hand, the contractors 'appear to be responsible for making the payments or the advances to the workers and to receive the repayments and not the petitioner. 7. Thus on a consideration of the above provisions of the Rules and the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, it is evident that the petitioner was not responsible for the contravention of any of the relevant rules (rules 4, 5 and 19 (3) of the Rules). 7. Thus on a consideration of the above provisions of the Rules and the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, it is evident that the petitioner was not responsible for the contravention of any of the relevant rules (rules 4, 5 and 19 (3) of the Rules). His conviction and sentence cannot, therefore, be sustained. 8. In the result, the application is allowed, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted. The fine, if already paid, shall be refunded. Application allowed.