Judgment This is a criminal revision case filed by A-1 V.K. Murthy against the judgment, dated 8th February, 1983 in C.C.No.8900 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, finding A-1 guilty under Rr.22,26(5),26(1), 25(2), 21(f) and 26(2) of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950, convicting him thereunder and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.25 for each offence, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week for each offence. A-2 was acquitted by the lower Court under section 255(1), Criminal procedure Code. 2. The case of the complainant-State represented by the Labour Enforcement Officer, Office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Sastri Bhavan, Madras-600006, is that the complainant/respondent herein has been appointed as an ‘Inspector’ under section 19(1) of the Minimum Wages Act for the State of Tamil Nadu by the Government of India -Gazette Notification No.S.32013(1)/75-WC (MW), dated 12th May, 1976 (S.O. 1807) published in the Gazette of India, dated 29th May, 1976). The complaint was filed by the complainant/respondent herein against A-1 V.K. Murthi (revision-petitioner herein), Managing Partner of M/s. V.K. Murthi, No.60, R.H.Road, Madras-4, and another under section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act, for violation of Rr.22, 26(5), 26(1), 25(2), 21(4) and 26(2) of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950. The complaint was filed by the complainant/respondent herein against A-1 V.K. Murthi (revision-petitioner herein), Managing Partner of M/s. V.K. Murthi, No.60, R.H.Road, Madras-4, and another under section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act, for violation of Rr.22, 26(5), 26(1), 25(2), 21(4) and 26(2) of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950. It is also the case of the complainant that the accused is an “employer” as per section 2(e) of the said Act in respect of the contract work of ‘construction of overhead tank at Perambur, Madras-12; that the construction or maintenance of roads or in building operations’ is a scheduled employment as per section2(g) of the said Act for which minimum rates of wages have been fixed by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi-vide Notification No.S.O.3613, dated 16th December, 1978; that R. Venkataseshan, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Madras, who has also been appointed as ‘Inspector’ under section 19(1) of the said Act-vide Gazette Notification No.S.32013(1)/ 75-WC (MW) dated 12th May, 1976 of Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi having jurisdiction over the said employer’s work, inspected the above said work on 12th January, 1980 under the aforesaid Act/Rules and observed that the accused had committed the following contraventions: (i) failed to display notice showing an abstract of the Act and Rules in English in contravention of Rule 22; (ii) Failed to maintain Muster Roll properly at the workspot (Cls.3 and 6 are missing) in contravention of Rule 26(5); (iii) Failed to maintain register of wages at the workspot in contravention of Rule 26(1); (iv) Failed to maintain register of overtime at the workspot in contravention of Rule 25(2); (v) Failed to maintain Register of Fines and Deductions for damage or loss at the workspot in contravention of Rule 21(4); and (vi) Failed to issue wage slips to the workers in contravention of Rule 26(2). It is also the case of the complainant/respondent herein that the abovesaid offences under the said Act/Rules, as observed by R. Venkataseshan, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Madras, were incorporated by him in the inspection report-cum-show cause notice No.M-26/12/81/E2, dated 12th January, 1981 and the same was handed over to the accused’s representative at the workspot and another copy was sent to the accused by registered post acknowledgment due which was received by him. It is also the case of the complainant that the accused having thus contravened the provisions of the said section of the said Act/Rules at the said work within the jurisdiction of the lower court, has rendered himself liable for prosecution under section 22-A of the-Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and hence the complaint had been laid before the lower Court. The following list of prosecution witnesses and documents relied upon in support of the complaint is found as part of the complaint that had been filed before the lower Court by the complainant-M.S. Ponnuswamy, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Madras and an ‘Inspector’ under section 19(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948: “1. Shri R. Venkataseshan, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Trichy; 2. Shri M.S. Ponnuswamy, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Madras; 3. Shri R. Punniakoti, Assistant Engineer, Post and Telegraphs, Madras; 4. Inspection report-cum-show cause notice No.M-26/12/81/E2, dated 12th January, 1981; 5. Statement dated 12th January, 1981 given by Shri K. Ramamurthy, Site-in-charge at the time of inspection. 6. Postal acknowledgement from the accused; and 7. Contract agreement with the Post and Telegraphs, Madras.” Even in the complaint filed before the lower Court dated 2nd June, 1981 it is seen that the complainant-M.S. Ponnuswamy has signed the complaint in the capacity as an ‘Inspector’ under section 19(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 3. On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 Venkataseshan and P.W.2 Punniakoti were examined. Ex.P-1 show cause notice sent to the accused, dated 21st January, 1981, P.2 report given by P.Ws.1 and 2, dated 12th January, 1981 relating to the irregularities noticed by him during the time of inspection which is also signed on behalf of A1/revisions-petitioner herein, P.3 postal acknowledgement regarding the notice that had been sent to A-1 on 24th January, 1981, and P-4 copy of the order, dated 23rd August, 1980 given by the postal department for the accused partnership firm for construction of overhead tank were filed on behalf of the complainant. On behalf of the accused Ex.D-1 reply dated 3rd January, 1981 given by M/s. V.K. Murthi to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), D-2 xerox copy of the deed of partnership executed at Madras on 1st January, 1976 between V.K. Murthi (revision-petitioner herein) and four others, D-3 register maintained under rule 260) of the Minimum Wages Rules commencing from 8th November, 1980 to 18th September, 1981, D-4 register maintained under rule 26(1) of the Minimum Wages Rules, D-5 register maintained for allotment of overtime work for the period commencing from 3rd November, 1980 to 9th August, 1981, D-6 register showing the fine amount as well as the deductions maintained for the period commencing from 3rd November, 1980 to 13th September, 1981 and D-7 file relating to the wage details of the employees commencing from 14th February, 1981 to 20th March, 1981 were filed on behalf of the accused. On the consideration of the above evidence, both oral and documentary, the lower Court came to the conclusion, as mentioned above. 4. It is, inter alia, contended by Mr. V. Gopinathan, learned Counsel for A-1/revision-petitioner herein that the lower Court had not properly appreciated the contentions raised before it and as such the order under revision is not correct and in accordance with law. 5. The point for consideration is whether there is any infirmity in the judgment of the lower Court. 6. It is contended by Mr. V. Gopinathan, learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner herein that it has not been proved by the prosecution that a Labour Enforcement Officer is an ‘Inspector’, as contemplated by the provision of section 19 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, by filing the Government of India Gazette Notification No.S.32013(1)/75/WCO(MW) dated 12th May, 1976 (S.No.1807 published in the Gazette of India, dated 29th May, 1976), and the production of the said gazette notification during the time of argument before the lower Court, cannot prove that P.W.1 Venkataseshan is an ‘Inspector’ as per the provision of the section 19 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner refers to the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Harshed K. Shah, (1981) Crl. L.J. 1096, for the proposition that belated production of sanction cannot cure defect. Even at the outset, it is to be mentioned that this argument advanced on behalf of the revision-petitioner herein is untenable and unsustainable. 7. L.J. 1096, for the proposition that belated production of sanction cannot cure defect. Even at the outset, it is to be mentioned that this argument advanced on behalf of the revision-petitioner herein is untenable and unsustainable. 7. In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, 1951 S.C.J. 775: (1951) 2 M.L.J. 683: 64 L.W. 1005: 1952 S.C.R. 89: A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 458. His Lordship Patanjali Sastri, J., observed as follows: “We are of opinion that in the context of Article 13 ‘Law’ must be taken to mean rules or regulations made in exercise of ordinary legislative power and not amendments to the Constitution made in exercise of constituent power, with the result that Article 13(2) does not affect amendments made under Article 368.” 8. In the instant case before us, as the very complaint under section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Office of the Regional Labour Commissioner Central), Shastri Bhavan, Madras shows that the complainant is the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Madras and he has been appointed as an ‘Inspector’ under section 19(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the State of Tamil Nadu by the Government of India-vide Gazette Notification No.S.32013(1)/75-WC (MW) dated 12th May, 1976 (S.O.1807, published in the Gazette of India, dated 29th May, 1976). The copy of the gazette notification S.No.1807 dated 12th May, 1976 published in the Gazette of India, dated 29th May, 1976, in original, appointing the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) as the Inspector under section 19(1) of the Minimum Wages Act was also submitted for perusal before the Lower Court, namely, the Court of the learned II Metropolitant Magistrate, Madras, on 23rd December, 1982. When the complainant-Labour Enforcement Officer-has specifically stated that as per the above notification, he has been appointed under section 19(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and has laid the complaint, and has also let in evidence on behalf of the prosecution before the lower Court in the said capacity as the ‘Inspector’ under section 19(1) of the Act, it cannot be held that the failure on the part of the prosecution to produce the above gazette notification is fatal to the prosecution case. The contents of the said gazette notification can be taken judicial notice of under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. 9. The contents of the said gazette notification can be taken judicial notice of under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. 9. In the instant case, as already stated the copy of the said notification was produced before the lower Court before pronouncement of the judgment. It is not the case of the revision-petitioner that the said notification which was produced before the lower Court is not a true document or that it is a document purporting to be printed by order of Central government. It is also not the case of the revision-petitioner that the Labour Enforcement Officer is not an ‘Inspector’ as per the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. 10. Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872) reads as follows: "81. The Court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be the London Gazette or any Official Gazette, or the Government Gazette of any colony, dependency or possession of the British Crown, or to be a newspaper or journal, or to be a copy of a private Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom printed by the Queen’s Printer and of every document purporting to be a document directed by any law to be kept by. any person, if such document is kept substantially in the form required by law and is produced from proper custody." This section declares Government Gazettes, or newspapers or journals, or copies of private Acts of Parliament printed by the King’s Printer to be Prima facie proof of their genuineness. The p. sumption is rebuttable. Genuineness of the Gazette must be presumed even if it is formally tendered. It is enough if the Court has the Gazette before it. As to judicial notice of notifications of appointment of Public Officers appearing in Gazettes we can safely rely on the provision of section 57, clause (7) of the Indian Evidence Act. 11. The Official Gazette of London, Edinburgh and Dublin are noticed on their mere production (31 & 32 vic. c. 37 ss.2, 5). The entire gazette must be produced and not a mere cutting. Court can presume genuineness of gazette notification although produced for the first time without production in the lower Court. 12. Section 37 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with "relevancy of statement as to fact of public nature" contained in certain Acts or notifications. c. 37 ss.2, 5). The entire gazette must be produced and not a mere cutting. Court can presume genuineness of gazette notification although produced for the first time without production in the lower Court. 12. Section 37 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with "relevancy of statement as to fact of public nature" contained in certain Acts or notifications. The said section 37 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as follows: "37. When the Court has to form an opinion as to the existence of any fact of a public nature, any statement of it, made in a recital contained in any Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom or in any Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act or in a Government Notification or Notification by the Crown Representative appearing in the Official Gazette or in any printed paper purporting to be the London Gazette or the Government Gazette or the Government Gazette of any Dominion, colony or possession of His Majesty, is a relevant fact." This section says that statements and recitals of facts of a public nature in statutes, ordinances, proclamations, etc., or Government Notification in Government Gazettes ace admissible in evidence in order to prove the existence of those facts. The facts to the existence of which the Court has to form an opinion must be of a Public nature. The expression ‘matters of Public nature’ is also to be found in section 42 of the Indian Evidence Act. The grounds of admissibility are the same in sections 35 and 36, viz., that the facts stated are of public notoriety and they have been recorded by competent public servants in the official discharge of their duties. The Government Gazettes are of course evidence of facts of public nature contained therein, but not of facts of private nature. Thus a notification in the Gazette regarding acquisition of land for public purpose comes under this section, but not a notification or advertisement by a private person appearing in a Government Gazette though it may concern the public. Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the judicial notice of statutes by Courts. As already mentioned section 78 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the mode of proving notification and section 81 deals with the presumptions concerning Gazettes. The Acts and Notifications are prima facie evidence but not conclusive. 13. Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the judicial notice of statutes by Courts. As already mentioned section 78 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the mode of proving notification and section 81 deals with the presumptions concerning Gazettes. The Acts and Notifications are prima facie evidence but not conclusive. 13. Before the publication of the Gazette of India, Notification of the Home Government were published in Gazettes of Local Governments. The Gazette of India was first published in 1863 (Official Gazettes Act 31 of 1863). As to presumption as to Gazettes, we can safely rely on the provision of section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act. 14. Puri Gazetter of O’Malley of 1908 was relied on as evidence providing historical material and the practice followed by a Math and its head. In Srinivas Das v. Suryanarayan, (1966) S.C.R. (Supp.) 436: A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 256, it was held that no adverse inference against the plaintiff for non-production of documents can be drawn when the plaintiff has not filed two documents relevant to the case, but only some from his possession, especially when the defendant has not called upon the plaintiff to produce the documents, whose existence was admitted by the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff. 15. Under the Documentary Evidence Act, 1868 (31 and 32, vic. c.37) amended by the Documentary Evidence Act, 1882 (45 and 46, vic. c. 9) production of the Official Gazette is prima facie evidence of any proclamation, order, or regulation issued before or after the passing of the Act, by His Majesty, the Privy Council or any of the principal departments of the State. 16. In the instant case before us also, it is relevant to note that in paragraph 2 of the complaint before the lower Court, the complainant has stated that the Notification has classified the Labour Enforcement Officer as the ‘Inspector’ under section 19(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 17. Clause (7) of section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, contemplates that the fact of the appointment to office, of persons whose accession to office, names, etc., are to be judicial noticed, should be notified in the Gazette of India or Pakistan or Local Official Gazette. Otherwise the Court will not recognise the fact of the appointment, of the official capacity, etc., of the person. 18. Otherwise the Court will not recognise the fact of the appointment, of the official capacity, etc., of the person. 18. In view of the above provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the well-recognised principles of law mentioned above, the contention raised on behalf of the revision-petitioner by Mr. V. Gopinathan, his learned Counsel, that the Gazette had been produced before the lower Court at a belated stage deprived the revision-petitioner herein from questioning the genuineness or otherwise of the contents of the same cannot be upheld. It is not the case of the revision-petitioner that at no point of time during trial and before the pronouncement of the judgment before the lower Court, the relevant gazette had not been produced on behalf of the prosecution. The judgment under revision clearly shows that the lower Court did peruse the contents of the gazette produced on behalf of the prosecution and applied its mind in giving effect to the said notification wherein it was notified that the Labour Enforcement Officer is an ‘Inspector’. 19. The next contention that is raised on behalf of the revision-petitioner is that the complainant who has signed the complaint filed on behalf of the complainant before the lower Court, namely M.S. Ponnuswami was not examined by the prosecution; but one Venkataseshan has been examined as P.W.1. It is relevant to note that it was only P.W.1 who had gone to the business place of the Partnership concern on 12th January, 1981 and inspected the place, and he has worked as Labour Enforcement Officer at Madras till 20th March, 1981. It is at Madras viz., Perambur, the accused-partnership concern had constructed an over-head tank. A-1 V.K. Murty is the Managing Partner of the partnership concern conducted under the name and style of M/s. V.K. Murti, No.60, R.H.Road, Madras-4. A-2 is M/s. V.K. Murti, viz., the partnership concern represented by M. Narendran, partner, No.60, R.H.Road, Madras-4. The lower Court had found A-1 guilty under Rules 22,27(5), 26(1), 25(2), 21(4) and 26(2) of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as mentioned above. The lower Court, as already mentioned, had acquitted A-2/partnership concern under section 255(1), Criminal Procedure Code. The evidence let in through D.W.1 was not accepted by the lower Court. On the other hand, the lower Court had accepted the evidence of both P.Ws.1 and 2 in this case. 20. The lower Court, as already mentioned, had acquitted A-2/partnership concern under section 255(1), Criminal Procedure Code. The evidence let in through D.W.1 was not accepted by the lower Court. On the other hand, the lower Court had accepted the evidence of both P.Ws.1 and 2 in this case. 20. Section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 reads as follows: "22-A. General provisions for punishment of other offences.- Any employer who contravenes any provisions 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." 21. Rules 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the Minimum Wages (Madras) Rules, 1953 reads as follows: "21. Time and Conditions of Payment of Wages and the Deductions Permissible from Wages- (1) (i) The Wages of a worker in any Scheduled employment shall be paid before the expiry of the tenth day after the last day of the wage period: Provided that in the case of establishments in the Kanyakumari District and the Shencottah Taluk of the Tirunelveli District in which less than one thousand persons are employed, the wages of a worker shall be paid before the expiry of the seventh day after the last day of the wage period. (ii) Where the employment of any person is terminated by or on behalf of the employer, or due to the acceptance of the employee’s resignation, the wages earned by him shall be paid before the expiry of the second working day after the day on which his employment is terminated. (iii) The wages of an employed person shall be paid to him without deduction of any kind except those authorised by or under these rules. Explanation.-Every payment made by the employed person to the employer or his agent shall, for the purposes of these rules, be deemed to be a deduction from wages. (iv) The employer shall display in a conspicuous place at or near the main entrance of the establishment, a notice in English and in the language of the majority of the persons employed therein, specifying the dates on which wages will ordinarily be paid, the dates so specified being not earlier which such notice is displayed. (iv) The employer shall display in a conspicuous place at or near the main entrance of the establishment, a notice in English and in the language of the majority of the persons employed therein, specifying the dates on which wages will ordinarily be paid, the dates so specified being not earlier which such notice is displayed. (2) Deductions from the wages of a person employed in a scheduled employment may be of one or more of the following kinds namely: (i) fines in respect of such acts and omissions on the part of the employed person as may be specified by the Government by general or special order in this behalf; (ii) deduction for absence from duty; (iii) deductions for damage to or loss of goods expressly entrusted to the employed person for custody, or for loss of money for which he is required to account, where such damage or loss is directly attributable to his neglect or default; (iv) deductions for payments to Co-operative Societies approved by the Government or for house accommodation supplied by the employer or by the Central or the State Government of any housing set up under any law for the time being in force (whether the Central or the State Government or the Board is the employer or not) or any other authority engaged in the business of subsidising house accommodation which may be specified in his behalf by the Government by notification in the Official Gazette; (v) deductions for such amenities and services supplied by the employer as the Government may by general or special order authorize; Explanation.-The Words “amenities and services” in this clause do not include the supply of tools and protectives required for the purposes of employment. (vi) deductions for recovery of advance or for adjustment of over-payments of wages: Provided that such advances do not exceed an amount equal to wages for two calendar months of the employed person and in no case, shall the monthly instalment of deduction exceed one-fourth of the wages earned in that month and the entire advance shall be recovered within a period of twelve months. (vii) deduction of income-tax or any tax that may be levied by the Government or local authority payable by the employed person; (viii) deduction required to be made by order of a Court or other authority; (ix) deduction for subscriptions to, and for repayment of advances from any provident fund to which the Provident Fund Act, 1925, applies or any recognised provident Fund Act, 1925, applies or any recognised provident fund as defined in section 58-A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or any provident fund approved in this behalf by the Government during the continuance of such approval; (x) deduction made with the written authorization of the employed person for payment of any premium on his Life Insurance Policy to the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (Central Act 31 of 1956), or to a scheme of insurance maintained by the Indian Post Office or for the purchase of securities of the Government of India or of any State Government or for being deposited in any Post Office Savings Bank in furtherance of any savings scheme of any such Government; (xi) deductions made with the written authorization of- (a) the employed person; or (b) the President or Secretary of the registered trade union of which the employed person is a member on such condition as may be specified by the State Government for contribution to the National Defence Fund or to any Defence Savings Scheme approved by the Central or the State Government. 3. Any person desirous of imposing a fine on an employed person or of making a deduction for damage or loss of goods caused by him, shall explain to him in writing the act or omission or the damage or loss in respect of which the fine or deduction is proposed to be imposed or made and give him an opportunity to offer an explanation in writing, and also to be heard in person, if he so desires. The fine shall be levied or the deduction ordered after due consideration of the explanation offered in writing or in person, as the case may be. 4. (i) The total amount of fine which may be imposed under sub-rule (3) shall not exceed in any one of wage period, an amount equal to three percent of the wages payable to the employed in respect of such wage period. 4. (i) The total amount of fine which may be imposed under sub-rule (3) shall not exceed in any one of wage period, an amount equal to three percent of the wages payable to the employed in respect of such wage period. (ii) The total amount of deduction for damage or loss ordered under sub-rule (3) shall not exceed the cost of replacing the article damaged or lost on the date of passing the order of recovery, or the book value of the article whichever is less. Where the amount of deductions exceeds an amount equal, to one-third of the wages payable to the employed person in respect of a wage period, the deduction shall be made in instalments in such a way that the amount of each instalment does not exceed one-third of the average wages payable to him between one instalment and the other. (iii) All realizations under clause (i) and all deductions under clause (ii) shall be recorded in a register maintained in Forms 1, II and III, as the case may be. A return in Form III shall be submitted annually by the employer to such Inspectors and before such time as may be notified by the Government in this regard. 5. All realizations from fines shall be applied only to such purposes which are beneficial to the persons employed in the scheduled employments as are generally approved by the Government in this behalf. 6. Nothing in this rule shall be deemed to affect the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. 22. Publicity to the minimum wage fixed under the Act.-A notice in Form X containing an abstract of the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, the minimum rates of wages fixed under the Act for the employment, concerned, and the name and address of the Inspector or Inspectors concerned shall be displayed in English and in a language understood by the majority of the workers in the employment at such a place as may be selected by the Inspector and shall be maintained in clear and legible condition. Such notices shall also be displayed on the notice boards of the offices of the Collectors, Revenue Divisional Officers, Tahsildars and Deputy Tahsildars in all the Districts. Such notices shall also be displayed on the notice boards of the offices of the Collectors, Revenue Divisional Officers, Tahsildars and Deputy Tahsildars in all the Districts. In the case of employment in Agriculture, the notices shall also be displayed in all the District Offices of the Agricultural Department and in the case of any other scheduled employment, such notices shall also be displayed in all the District Offices of the Industries and Labour and Factories Departments. 25. Cases and circumstances in which an employee employed for a period of less than the requisite number of hours constituting a normal working day shall not be entitled to receive wages for a full normal working day-(1) The following shall be cases and circumstances in which an employee employed for a period of less than the requisite number of hours constituting a normal working day shall not be entitled to receive wages for a full normal working day: (a) tempest, fire, rain, breakdown of machinery or stoppage of or any cut in the supply of power, epidemic, civil commotion or other cause beyond the control of the employer. (b) Refusal to work. (c) Strike or stay-in-strike. (2) In the case of interruption brought about by tempest; fire, rain, breakdown of machinery, epidemic, civil commotion or other natural causes beyond the control of the employer, the employee who has already started work for the day shall be paid wages at half the minimum rates of wages fixed for a normal working day if the interruption occurs at any time before the interval for middy rest. If the interruption occurs after the interval of midday rest, he shall be paid wages for a full normal working day. (3) If by reason of stoppage or of any cut in the supply of power, effected by the Government an employer is prevented on any working day from giving work to his employees for a full normal working day, the employees shall receive wages for such day in the proportion the number of hours he worked bears to the number of hours constituting the normal working day. 26. Extra Wages for overtime.-(1) When a worker works on any day for more than the number of hours constituting the normal working day, or for more than forty-eight hours in any week, he shall in respect of overtime work, be entitled to wages. 26. Extra Wages for overtime.-(1) When a worker works on any day for more than the number of hours constituting the normal working day, or for more than forty-eight hours in any week, he shall in respect of overtime work, be entitled to wages. (a) in the case of employment in agriculture including plantations, at one and a half times the ordinary rate of wages: Provided that in the case of plantations situated in the Kanyakumari District and the Shencottah Taluk of the Tirunelveli District the worker shall be entitled to wages at double the ordinary rate of wages. (b) in the case of any other scheduled employment, at double the ordinary rate of wages, Explanation.-The expression “ordinary rate of wages” means the basic wage plus such allowances including the cash equivalent of the advantages accruing through the concessional sale to the person employed of foodgrains and other articles as the person employed is for the time being entitled to but does not include a bonus. (2) A register showing overtime payments shall be kept in Form IV. Overtime work shall be entered up in the register before the expiry of 24 hours from the commencement of such work.. 27. Form of Registers and Records.- (1) A Register of wages shall be maintained by every employer at the workspot or the principal office attached to it and kept it in such form as may be notified by the Government and shall include the following particulars.- (a) the minimum rates of wages payable to each employed person. (b) (i) Total overtime worked (or total production during overtime in the case of piece rate workers) in the wage period. (This entry should agree with the total for each wage period shown in column (8) of the overtime register). (ii) Overtime earnings in the wage period. (This entry should correspond with the total for each wage period shown in column (13) of the overtime register). (c) The gross wages of each person employed for each wage period; (d) All deductions made from wages, with an indication in each case, of the kinds of deductions mentioned in sub-rule (2) of rule 21; and (e) the wages actually paid to each person employed for each wage period and that date of payment. (c) The gross wages of each person employed for each wage period; (d) All deductions made from wages, with an indication in each case, of the kinds of deductions mentioned in sub-rule (2) of rule 21; and (e) the wages actually paid to each person employed for each wage period and that date of payment. (2) Wage slips containing the aforesaid particulars and such other particulars as may be notified by the Government shall be issued by every employer to every person employed by him at least a day prior to the disbursement of wages or if the wages are paid daily along with the wages. (3) Every employer shall get the signature or the thumb impression of every person employed on the wage books at the time of the payment of wages. (4) Entries in the wage books and wage slips shall be authenticated by the employer or any person authorised by him in this behalf. (5) A Muster Roll shall be maintained by every employer at the workspot or the principal office attached to it and kept in Form V and it shall be written up every day on which work is performed. Note.-In the case of a plantation, the estate will be deemed to be the workspot but the employer shall make the registers available for inspection by the Inspector at the actual division or place of work in the estate, if so required. (6) A register of employees shall be maintained by every employer at the workspot or principal office attached to it in Form XI: Provided that no separate register as aforesaid need be maintained if the particulars required in Form XI are contained in any other records maintained by the employer under any other Labour Law." 22. P.W.1 has comprehensively deposed relating to the inspection of the business premises owned by the partnership of which A-1/revision-petitioner is the Managing Partner. P.W.1 has reiterated the contents of the complaint before the lower Court. Nothing material has been elicited in the cross-examination of either P.W.1 or P.W.2 so as to reject their evidence as false. P.W.1 has comprehensively deposed relating to the inspection of the business premises owned by the partnership of which A-1/revision-petitioner is the Managing Partner. P.W.1 has reiterated the contents of the complaint before the lower Court. Nothing material has been elicited in the cross-examination of either P.W.1 or P.W.2 so as to reject their evidence as false. Though D.W.1 has asserted that the registers were maintained by the partnership concern as per the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and the Rules made thereunder, yet P.W.1 has specifically pointed out in his evidence as to how Rules 26(5), 26(1), 260, 21 (4) and 25(2) have been violated by the revision-petitioner herein. It is common ground that as and when P.W.1 inspected the premises in question, the documents required to be maintained by the partnership concern were not produced. In this regard the learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner relies on the contents of Ex.D-1 which merely mention about the box key having been retained by the office assistant and that he has gone to the head office during the time of inspection. It is further stated in Ex.D-1 that during the next inspection, the accused partnership concern can show all the records. The contents of Ex.D-1 do not in any way help the case of the accused that the registers required by the provisions of the Act had been maintained by them. The lower Court has comprehensively discussed the evidence, both oral and documentary, and has come to the correct conclusion. In as much as the only two points, raised in this criminal revision case, namely that the Gazette Notification appointing the Labour Enforcement Officer as an ‘Inspector’ under section 19(1) of the Act was produced at a belated stage before the lower Court and this has caused prejudice to the interests of the revision-petitioner as well as the point regarding the merits of the case that the registers were maintained by the revision-petitioner during the relevant time, were found against the revision-petitioner herein, it is needless to say that this criminal revision case has necessarily to be dismissed. 23. This Court does not find any infirmity in the judgment of the lower Court. Hence the criminal revision case is dismissed.