JUDGMENT The question for consideration in these two appeals is whether the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 , or the Andhra Pradesh Minimum Wages Rules, 1960 that are applicable to the shops of the respondent? 2. It is sufficient if I state the facts in Crl. Appeal No. 146 of 1980. The Assistant Inspector of Labour, Kurnool-II circle and Inspector under the Minimum Wages Act, inspected the shop of the respondent at Kurnool on 30th January, 1979, at 6-55 p. m. The respondent, the owner of the shop was present. The Officer demanded the production of the wage slips of the employees for the period September, 1978 to December, 1978. The respondent produced wage slips issued upto August, 1978. Then the Assistant Inspector of Labour prepared the inspection report. Exhibit P-1 on the spot and obtained the signature of the employer on it and also noted the remarks in the visitor's book maintained under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act. He issued inspection order-caw-show cause notice, dated 31st January, 1979, which was received by the respondent on 17th February, 1979. Since there was no reply, a complaint was filed against the respondent on 24th April, 1979, after obtaining the approval of the Labour Officer, Kurnool. The respondent was prosecuted for contravention of rule 30(2) read with rule 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Minimum Wages Rules, 1960. 3. The respondent denied the prosecution version as spoken to by the Assistant Inspector of Labour (P. W. 1). 4. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent on the ground that only one show cause notice was issued to the respondent and no opportunity was given to him to rectify the defects as pointed out in the inspection notes. It was also observed that the Assistant Inspector of Labour did not choose to visit the shop again so as to ascertain whether the defects pointed out by him were rectified by the employer or not. The Magistrate held that the prosecution did not comply with the requirements of rule 26-B (2) of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950, and therefore he acquitted the respondent. Questioning his order the Assistant Inspector of Labour has filed this appeal. 5. The Magistrate held that the prosecution did not comply with the requirements of rule 26-B (2) of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950, and therefore he acquitted the respondent. Questioning his order the Assistant Inspector of Labour has filed this appeal. 5. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is the State Rules that are applicable, but not the Central Rules , and the learned Magistrate erred in holding that rule 26-B (2) of Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 is applicable and acquitting the respondent. 6. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that when the Assistant Inspector of Labour himself had thought fit to invoke rule 26-B (2) of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 it is not for him now to contend that, that rule has no application and even otherwise since the offence has taken place on 30th January, 1979, more than two years back, it is not desirable to interfere with the order of acquittal. 7. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned Public Prosecutor, it is necessary to refer to relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is a Central Act. It was passed for fixing minimum rates of wages in certain employments. Section 2(b) defines “appropriate Government” as meaning: “(i) in relation to any schedule employment carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or a railway administration, or in relation to a mine, oil field or major port, or any corporation established by a Central Act, the Central Government, and (ii) in relation to any other scheduled employment, the State Government. Section 2(g) defines “Scheduled employment” as meaning: “an employment specified in the schedule, or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment”. Section 27 empowers the appropriate Government to add to the Schedule. In the Schedule, as it stands today in the additions made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, item 25 relates to employment in any shop and commercial establishments not being employment in any Bank or employment which is included under any of the other entries in the Schedule to the Act. Therefore, the establishment of the respondent is a scheduled employment. Therefore, the establishment of the respondent is a scheduled employment. But, it is not a scheduled employment carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or a railway administration, or in relation to a mine oil field or major port, or any Corporation established by a Central Act. Therefore, the appropriate Government in relation to that employment is not the Central Government as envisaged in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of section 2. Since it is in relation to other scheduled employment, the appropriate Government is the State Government, as mentioned in subclause (ii) of clause (b) of section 2 Thus, with respect to the shop of the respondent, the appropriate Government is the State Government but not the Central Government. Under section 3 , it is the appropriate Government that has to fix the minimum rates of wages payable to the employees employed in an establishment specified in part I or part II of the Schedule and in an employment added to either part by notification under section 27. Section 5 prescribes the procedure for fixing and revising minimum wages by the appropriate Government. Under section 12, the employer shall pay minimum rate of wages to every employee without any deduction, except authorised deductions. 8. Section 16 (1) says, that every employer shall maintain such registers and records giving such particulars of employees employed by him, the work performed by them, the wages paid to them, the receipts given by them and such other particulars and in such form as may be prescribed. Under sub- section (2) every employer shall keep exhibited, in such manner as may be prescribed in the factory, workshop or place where the employees in the scheduled employment may be employed, or in the case of out-workers, in such factory, workshop or place as may be used for giving out-work them, notices in the prescribed form containing prescribed particulars. Sub- section (3) provides that the appropriate Government may, by rules made under the Act, provide for the issue of wage books or wage slips to employees in any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed and prescribe the manner in which entries shall be made and authenticated in wage books or wage slips by the employer or his agent. 9. 9. In view of this sub-section, it is the State Government that has to make rules for the issue of wage books or wage slips with respect to scheduled employment not covered by subclause (i) of clause (b) of section 2. Admittedly, the establishment of the respondent falls under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of section 2. Therefore the State Government can make rules under this sub- section with regard to the issue of wage books or wage slips to employees employed in that scheduled employment. Under section 30 the appropriate Government can make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Clause (j) of sub- section (2) of that section empowers the Government to provide for the issue of wage books and wage slips and prescribe the manner of making and authenticating entries in the wage books and wage slips. In view of these provisions with regard to item 25 in part I of the Schedule, that is employment in any shops and commercial establishments not being employment in any Bank or employment which is included under any of the other entries in the schedule to the Act, the appropriate Government is the State Government that has to make the rules and it did make the rules Evidently, the rules made by the Central Government have no application to item 25, that is the employment in shops and commercial establishments, for it is outside the purview of sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of section 2. Consequently, I hold that it is the Andhra Pradesh Minimum Wages Rules, 1960 , that are applicable to the shop of the respondent, but not the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950. 10. Rule 26-B (1) of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950, says that all registers and records required to be maintained, by an employer under these rules shall be produced on demand before the Inspector during the course of inspection of the establishment: provided that the Inspector may, if it is necessary, demand the production of the registers and records in his office or such other public place as may be nearer to the employer. Subclause (2) of that rule provides that, any infringement of the provisions of the Act or the Rules noticed by the Inspector and communicated to the employer during the course of an inspection or otherwise, shall be rectified by the employer and compliance report in respect thereof, shall be submitted to the Inspector, on or before the date specified by him in that behalf. In view of this sub-rule, the Inspector gives a notice to the employer to rectify the defects found by him in the Inspection within a particular time and the employer has to submit compliance report to the Inspector. Evidently, this rule applies to all Scheduled employments carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, or Railway administration, or in relation to a mine, oil field or major port or corporation established by a Central Act. This rule has no application to any other scheduled employment. 11. We do not have a similar provision in the Andhra Pradesh Minimum Wages Rules. The corresponding rules are 30 and 31. They do not provide for giving any such notice to the employer as in Central Rule 26-B (2). Therefore, I hold that in this case, there was no need to give any notice under the Central Rule 26-B (2) to the respondent. Consequently the Magistrate erred in holding that an opportunity was not given to the respondent. 12. But the fact remains that the Assistant Inspector of Labour did give a notice to the respondent on 4th January, 1979, to show cause within seven days of the receipt of that notice why prosecution should not be taken against him. Apart from that, it is a minor offence and is of the year 1978. The order of acquittal is dated 1st September, 1979. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the lower Court. Hence I dismiss these appeals. C.V.N.R. ----- Appeal dismissed.