Judgment :- 1. These are appeals against acquittals in STC. Nos. 37 of 1979 and 38 of 1979 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palghat. The appellant, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Coimbatore, filed two complaints against the common respondent, railway contractor, for non-compliance with certain provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short the 'Act') and the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules. 1950 (for short the 'Rules'), The respondent as the contractor for the Railways was constructing staff quarters for the Railway Staff, near Parali Railway Station in 1979. The complainant inspected the work spot of the respondent on 15-11-1979 at 4 P.M. The respondent was not present there, though his workers were present. pw.1 found that the register of wages, register of over-time, register of fines, deductions for damages or loss, etc. were not maintained at the work spot as required under R.26(1), 25(2), 21(4) respectively of the Rules. He issued Ext. P1 notice, which was received by the respondent as seen from Ext. P2 postal acknowledgment and to which the respondent sent Ext. P3 reply. Since the reply was found unsatisfactory the prosecution was launched against him that is STC. 37 of 1979. During the inspection, the complainant also found that the respondent failed to display notices containing minimum rates of wages and abstracts of the Act and the Rules and other particulars as required under R.22 of the rules; the respondent failed to issue wage slips to the workers as contemplated under R.26(2) and failed to maintain muster roll at the work spot as required in R.26(5) of the Rules. This is the subject matter of STC. No. 38 of 1979. Prosecution was launched after notice was issued and which brought forth an unsatisfactory reply. The respondent pleaded not guilty in both the cases. In each case the complainant was examined as pw.1 and Exts. P1 to P3 were marked. On the defence side no evidence was adduced. An attempt was made during the cross-examination of pw. I to suggest that there was no inspection at all as alleged. However, the trial Magistrate found that the prosecution cannot stand since the complainant had not issued a communication or notice as contemplated under R.26B(2) of the Rules and acquitted the respondent in both the cases. The acquittals are now challenged by the complainant by special leave. 2. I to suggest that there was no inspection at all as alleged. However, the trial Magistrate found that the prosecution cannot stand since the complainant had not issued a communication or notice as contemplated under R.26B(2) of the Rules and acquitted the respondent in both the cases. The acquittals are now challenged by the complainant by special leave. 2. There is no dispute that the respondent is an employer with reference to a scheduled employment in Item No. 7 of Part I of the schedule to the Act. He was engaged in the construction of staff quarters for the Railways near the Parli Railway Station. Minimum wages had been prescribed for payment to the workers engaged in such employment. Payment of minimum wages and certain other benefits are conferred under S.12 to 17 of the Act. S.18 of the Act requires the employer to maintain registers and records regarding the particulars stated therein in such form and in the manner prescribed. It also requires the employer to keep exhibited in the prescribed manner in the factory work spot or the place of employment notices in the prescribed form containing the prescribed particulars. The section also authorises the appropriate government by rules to provide for the issue of wage books or wage slips to employees employed in a scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed. S.19 empowers the appropriate government to appoint inspectors for the purpose of the Act and their powers are also defined therein. S.22 of the Act provides for penalties for certain offences. Residuary S.22A states that any employer who contravenes any provision of the Act or the rule or order made thereunder, shall, if no other penalty is provided for such contravention by the Act, be punishable with fine, which may extend to five hundred rupees. S.22B of the Act provides for cognizance of offences and the limitation thereof. S.29 deals with the power of the Central Government to make rules and S.30 deals with the power of the appropriate Government to make rules. The appropriate Government in relation to this case is the Central Government. 3. To effectuate the purpose of the Act the Central Government has framed rules as already mentioned. Chapter IV of the Rules deal with computation and payment of wages, hours of work and holidays. The appropriate Government in relation to this case is the Central Government. 3. To effectuate the purpose of the Act the Central Government has framed rules as already mentioned. Chapter IV of the Rules deal with computation and payment of wages, hours of work and holidays. R.21 deals with the time and conditions of payment of wages and deductions permissible from wages. Sub-rule (4) states that all fines imposed and deductions made shall be recorded in the registers maintained in Forms I and H respectively and these registers shall be kept at the work spot and maintained up-to-date. R.25 deals with extra wages for overtime. Sub-rule (2) states that register of overtime shall be maintained by every employer in Form IV in which entries shall be made as and when overtime is worked in any establishment and registers will be kept at the workspot and maintained up-to-date. R.26 deals with the forms and registers and records. Sub-rule (1) states that a register of wages shall be maintained by every employer in the workspot in Form X. Sub-rule (2) states that wage slip in Form II shall be issued by every employer to every person employed by him atleast a day prior to the disbursement of wages. Sub-rule (S) requires every employer to maintain at the workspot a muster-roll in Form V and that the attendance of each person employed shall be recorded daily in that form. R.22 states that notice in Form IX-A containing the minimum rates of wages fixed together with extracts of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and the name and address of the Inspector shall be displayed in English and in a language understood by the majority of the workers in the employment at the main entrance to the establishment and its office. According to the complainant all these provisions have been violated by the respondent. 4. The acquittal is based on sub-rule (2) of R.26B of the Rules. R.26B of the Rules reads as follows: "26.B. Production of registers and other records. According to the complainant all these provisions have been violated by the respondent. 4. The acquittal is based on sub-rule (2) of R.26B of the Rules. R.26B of the Rules reads as follows: "26.B. Production of registers and other records. (1) 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 H 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. (2) Any infringement of the provision of the Act or these 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 this behalf." In other words, the Inspector has a right and a duty to call for production of registers and records required to be maintained under the rules during the course of inspection of the establishment He can also demand production in his office or such other public place, as may be nearer to the employer. In cases where he notices any infringement of the provisions of the Act or the Rules, he may communicate the same to the employer during the course of inspection or otherwise and the same shall be rectified by the employer on or before the date specified by him in that behalf. 4. No doubt, under S.19 of the Act, the Inspector has a right to enter any premises or place where employees are employed in any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under the Act, for the purpose of examining the registers, record of wages or notices required to be maintained, kept or exhibited by the Act and the Rules and require the production thereof for the purpose of inspection. Maintenance of such registers and records is contemplated in S.18 of the Act. R.21(4). 22, 25(2) and various sub-rules of R.26, etc. deal with the maintenance of register, records, exhibition of notices, maintenance of muster rolls, issue of wage slips, etc. Maintenance of such registers and records is contemplated in S.18 of the Act. R.21(4). 22, 25(2) and various sub-rules of R.26, etc. deal with the maintenance of register, records, exhibition of notices, maintenance of muster rolls, issue of wage slips, etc. The Inspector has a right to inspect the establishment and require the production of these records for inspection. It is this right which is explained in sub-rule (1) of R.26B. This rule requires that all registers and records required to be maintained by an employer under the Rules shall be produced on demand before the Inspector during the course of the inspection or cause to be produced in his office, or such other public place as may be nearer to the employer Sub-rule (2) is a corollary to sub-rule (1) whereunder, if any infringement of the provisions of the Act and the Rules is noticed by the Inspector, and communicated to the employer, the same shall be rectified by the employer and compliance report shall be submitted to the Inspector within the time specified. The rule does not indicate that communication to the employer shall be in a particular manner. Where it is communicated to the employer, the latter has a duty to rectify the same and report compliance with the time specified. There is nothing in the rule to indicate that such communication on the part of the Inspector, by way of notice or otherwise, is mandatory or is a pre-condition for launching prosecution. 5. There are different modes of enforcement of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. One mode is to prefer a claim under S.20 of the Act. The other is to prosecute the offending employer under S.22 or 22A of the Act. It is always open to the Inspector, without resorting to prosecution, to communicate to the employer the infringement of the provisions of the Act and the Rules noticed by him. That gives an opportunity to the employer to rectify the defects, mistakes or omissions, if he desires to act bona fide and in accordance with law. If rectification is made, perhaps, the department may not be interested in prosecuting the erring employer. But, this is not to say that where the infringement is detected, a notice under S.26B(2) of the Rules is a mandatory pre-condition for launching prosecution. If rectification is made, perhaps, the department may not be interested in prosecuting the erring employer. But, this is not to say that where the infringement is detected, a notice under S.26B(2) of the Rules is a mandatory pre-condition for launching prosecution. There is nothing in the scheme of the Act and the Rules to indicate that issue of notice is mandatory. 6. It is the duty of the employer to maintain the register of fines and deductions from wages for the loss and keep it at the workspot. A register of over-time also has to be maintained and kept in the work spot. Similar is the position with regard to the register of wages and muster-roll. Notices in Form IX-A are to be displayed at the main entrance to the establishment and at its office. Failure to maintain the registers by itself is a violation of the relevant rules. Failure to exhibit notices at the places mentioned amounts to violation of the relevant rule. Failure to keep registers as mentioned at the workspot involves violation of the relevant rule. Of course it is open to the Inspector to communicate to the employer regarding these violations and it is the duty of the employer to rectify the same and report compliance to the Inspector. When these defects are rectified, the rectification operates only from the date of the rectification. It does not have the effect of setting right the failure to keep the registers and records at the workspot, etc. at an anterior point of time. Therefore, the rectification contemplated under R.26B (2) of the Rules by itself cannot enable the employer to get over as earlier violation of the rules, though as a matter of policy or expediency, in such cases where the department is satisfied that the employer had acted bona fide, it may refrain from launching prosecution against the employer. But, that is not to say that the rectification wipes out the earlier infringement of the rule. In this view also it cannot be said that a communication by the Inspector to the employer under R.26B(2) of the Rules is a mandatory pre-condition for launching prosecution. 7. The argument which appealed to the learned Magistrate is that Ext. But, that is not to say that the rectification wipes out the earlier infringement of the rule. In this view also it cannot be said that a communication by the Inspector to the employer under R.26B(2) of the Rules is a mandatory pre-condition for launching prosecution. 7. The argument which appealed to the learned Magistrate is that Ext. P1 in these two cases evidences only a show cause notice issued by the Inspector to the respondent and it does not amount to a communication under R.26B (2) of the Rules. The learned trial Magistrate further held that a notice under R.26B (2) is mandatory. The learned counsel for the respondent was not in a position to place any provision in the Act or in the Rules requiring the issuance of a show cause notice to the respondent before launching prosecution against him. It is not correct to say that in the absence of a show cause notice prosecution cannot lie. Of course, as a matter of practice, Inspectors issue show cause notices to see whether the employer will offer any explanation which is satisfactory and which may perhaps obviate launching of prosecution. Naturally where a show cause notice is issued and the employer offers bis explanation, which is found to be satisfactory or bona fide, the inspector may not launch prosecution against him. This method is adopted only to prevent harassment to bona fide employers, who may have acted in the ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law or who may have acted under other justifiable reasons. 8. The Departmental Manual of Chief Labour Commissioner Part IV has been placed before me. The Manual contains instructions to Inspectors. They have been cautioned from indiscriminately launching prosecutions. They have been advised to give opportunities to employers to rectify defects or to show cause against the prosecution. That is to prevent the department from being engulfed in unnecessary prosecutions and to prevent harassment of employers acting bona fide But, these instructions are not part of the law and no employer can insist that since instructions have not been fulfilled, prosecution cannot lie. That is to prevent the department from being engulfed in unnecessary prosecutions and to prevent harassment of employers acting bona fide But, these instructions are not part of the law and no employer can insist that since instructions have not been fulfilled, prosecution cannot lie. For example, instruction 9.37 in Chapter IX of the Manual states that when records are pot maintained at the workspot, or not produced at the time of inspection, but are later produced for inspection before or after the issue of show cause notice for legal action, the officer shall check the reports to see whether they are properly maintained and if no irregularities are observed from the scrutiny of the records, the question of prosecuting the employer should not ordinarily be pursued. The employer could be warned so that legal action could be taken if necessary for repetition of the same offence in future. But no employer can rely on these instructions to contend that show cause notice or other type of notice is mandatory precondition for launching prosecution against the employer. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent very strenuously relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Maya Chandra and others v. The Inspector, Minimum Wages Office and others (1979 Lab. I.C. 152). It was on the basis of this decision that the trial court acquitted the respondent. The case dealt with a prosecution under S.22A of the Act. The inspector, on inspection of the establishment of the cinema industry of the accused therein noticed certain contraventions of the Act and served notices to show cause why legal action should not be taken. One of the accused submitted an application contending that they were maintaining registers under the Shops & Establishments Act and therefore there was no necessity to maintain duplicate set of registers for the purpose of the Minimum Wages Act This contention was upheld by the Calcutta High Court on the ground that Form M under the Shops and Establishments Act satisfies all the requirements of the deductions including fines as well as overtime, and Farm U also provides the necessary details and that these two forms together met all the requirements of the Minimum Wages Act and therefore no offence has been committed. It was also contended before the High Court that the notice issued by the Inspector did not comply with the requirements of R.26(B)(2)of the Rules and therefore, prosecution cannot lie. After extracting the Rule, Mrs Jyotirmoyee Nag, J. observed as follows: "Therefore, the attention of the employer should be drawn to any laches in the maintenance of registers and the employer should be asked to comply with the requirements of the Act and the Rules within a specified time. It the employer does not comply with the requirements as stated in the notice then he will be liable for prosecution. In the instant case no such notice was given. The only notice that was given to the petitioners is to show cause why they should not be prosecuted in law for non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules regarding maintenance of registers. The petitioners were not given such notice nor was a date specified by the Inspector with which they bad to comply with the order of the Inspector in respect of the maintenance of registers. According to the provisions of this Rule the first notice should give a specified date for compliance with the requirements of the Act and the Rules and if a second notice is served thereafter that may be for showing cause why legal action may not be taken against them. Accordingly the notice that was issued by the Inspector to the petitioners does not comply with the requirements of R.26-B sub-r. (2) and therefore that notice is also bad as no opportunity was given to the petitioner to rectify the laches if any pointed out by the Inspector" From the passage extracted above, it appears as if the learned judge assumed, without examining the relevant provisions, that two notices were necessary, one under R.26B (2) and the other to show cause why prosecution should not be launched. As already examined, there is nothing in the provisions of the Act or the Rules requiring the Inspector to issue a show cause notice before launching prosecution. Of course, he may do so to satisfy himself whether the employer had any grounds or explanations for not maintaining the registers. As already examined, there is nothing in the provisions of the Act or the Rules requiring the Inspector to issue a show cause notice before launching prosecution. Of course, he may do so to satisfy himself whether the employer had any grounds or explanations for not maintaining the registers. But to say that a show cause notice has to be issued in all such cases and that without a show cause notice prosecution is bad, is to travel outside the provisions of the Act and the Rules and insist on a condition not contemplated by law. It is true that R.26B (2) communicates, not a notice as such, but a communication to the employer pointing out the irregularities detected at the time of inspection or otherwise, in which case, the employer has a duty to rectify the defects and submit the report of compliance to the Inspector. As already pointed out, certain defects may not be curable from an anterior point of time. If the violation is only the failure to make necessary entries in the registers, perhaps, the entries relating to a past period could be made subsequently and the defect could be rectified. But, if the defect consists in not keeping the registers at the workspot or in not exhibiting notices as enjoined by the rules such defect can be cured only prospectively and not from an anterior point of time The purpose of the notice to be issued under R.26B(2) in such cases will only be to ensure future compliance with the rules. There is also nothing in the rule to indicate that without such a notice prosecution cannot be launched. It may be desirable that the inspector issues a notice under R.26B (2) or a show cause notice or both notices in appropriate cases before launching prosecution. That may sometimes help to reduce the number of prosecutions or to avoid unnecessary harassment to employers. But, in the absence of any provision requiring such notice or notices to be issued before launching prosecution, no case can be thrown out on account of absence of notice. With great respect, I am unable to agree with the view taken by the Calcutta High Court. 10. Thus, it is seen that the reason put forward by the trial Magistrate for acquitting the respondent cannot stand. With great respect, I am unable to agree with the view taken by the Calcutta High Court. 10. Thus, it is seen that the reason put forward by the trial Magistrate for acquitting the respondent cannot stand. It is open to this court to convict the accused or to send the case back for re-hearing and a fresh decision. However, in view of the long lapse of time and in view of the readiness expressed by the employer to conform to the rules in the reply notice, I do not think, interests of justice require either of the courses to be adopted in this case. In this view, I do not propose to interfere with the acquittal recorded by the trial court. The Criminal Appeals are, therefore, dismissed. Dismissed.