JUDGMENT Ashok Agarwal, J. - The present appeal has been filed by the State, seeking to impugned an order of acquittal passed on the 16th April, 1986 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Uran in S.C. No. 501 of 1985. The respondents/original accused were prosecuted in the above case under section 10(1)(a) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976. On the 8th of November, 1985 Shri Gyanendra Singh, a Labour Enforcement Officer, instituted the present complaint. The complainant alleged that on the 16th of September, 1985 when the establishment of the accused was inspected at its site “Stone quarry at Jasai, District Raigad" it was found that the accused had failed to maintain a register in Form-D relating to the workers employed by the accused as required under rule 6. In the complaint, the complainant stated that he is a public servant and he has to undertake tours etc, for discharging his public duties. He, therefore, prayed that under the provisions of section 256, Criminal Procedure Code he may kindly be exempted from day to day attendance in Court. 2. On that date of the presentation of the complaint i.e. on the 8th of November, 1985 the learned Magistrate issued process against the accused. The matter next appeared on Board on 12th of March, 1986 when both the complainant and the accused were absent. The Advocate for the complainant was however present. It was found, that the summons was not issued. Hence, a direction "Yasissued to issue summons to the accused. On the 4th of April, 1986 summons was issued. The case next appeared on the Board on the 16th, of April, 1986 when the accused appeared. He appeared and his Advocate filed his appearance on his behalf. On that day, the complainant was absent. On the very day i.e. on the 16th of April: 1986 the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order disposing of the complaint for default and acquitting the accused. It is this order which is impugned in the present appeal. 3. The facts narrated above clearly indicates that the learned Magistrate has chosen to dispose of the complaint and acquitted the accused on the very first date on which the accused appeared. In may view, the learned Magistrate has erred in so disposing of the proceedings. It is this order which is impugned in the present appeal. 3. The facts narrated above clearly indicates that the learned Magistrate has chosen to dispose of the complaint and acquitted the accused on the very first date on which the accused appeared. In may view, the learned Magistrate has erred in so disposing of the proceedings. He does not appear to have applied his mind to the prayer contained in the complaint for exempting the presence of the complainant. In my vie, the learned- Magistrate would have been better advised to adjourn the case especially as this was the first date of appearance of the accused. The anxiety of disposal in this case is wholly misplaced. The impugned order of acquittal, in the circumstances, deserves to be set aside. 4. The case will now go back to the trial, Magistrate for being tried on its own merits and in accordance with law. In the result, appeal is allowed. The impugned order-of acquittal-passed on the 16th of April, 1986 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Uran in S.C. No. 500 of 1985 is set aside and the case is remanded back to the trial Magistrate for a retrial. The trial Magistrate will issue a fresh notice to the complainant and fresh process against the accused and proceed with the trial in accordance with law. Appeal allowed.