K. J. VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Appeal by the State of Gujarat is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 16th August, 1994 dismissing the complaint, rendered in Criminal Case No. 503 of 1993, passed by Mr. PJ. Ghangha, the learned j. M. F. C. , Shihor, wherein Messrs. Usha Re-rolling Mills Private Limited, Shihor and Shri k. K. Jain, its Managing Director-Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, came to be prosecuted for the alleged breach of Rules 26 (A) and 26 (B) of the Gujarat Minimum wages Rules, 1961 read with Section 22 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. ( 2 ) IN brief, it is the prosecution case that Mr. P. P. Joshi, Minimum Wages Inspector filed a complaint against the two respondents above named for the aforesaid alleged offence before the learned Magistrate, Shihor. However, thereafter since the respondents were not available at the address given in the complaint, the same case to be dismissed, giving rise to the present appeal. At this stage, incidentally, it may be pointed out that having regard to the fact that the learned Magistrate had dismissed the complaint, the appropriate remedy would have been by filing the Criminal Revision Application and not an Appeal. Any way, since this matter ultimately deserves to be remanded, technically speaking, the question whether the impugned order is challenged by way of appeal or revision does not make any difference, and therefore, it is not necessary to convert the same into revision application. ( 3 ) MR. K. P. Raval, the learned APP appearing for the appellant-State while challenging the impugned order contended that though the addresses given in the complaint were correct and yet since for whatever reasons the respondents could not be served at the given address, by way of abundant caution only, some further time appears to have been sought for to obtain fresh address, if by chance the address/es given in the complaint were not correct. This unfortunately could not be furnished on the next date as a result of which, the learned Magistrate in hot-haste dismissed the complaint According to the learned APP, having regard to the fact that the offence alleged against the respondents were under the Labour Welfare Legislation viz. This unfortunately could not be furnished on the next date as a result of which, the learned Magistrate in hot-haste dismissed the complaint According to the learned APP, having regard to the fact that the offence alleged against the respondents were under the Labour Welfare Legislation viz. , The Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the complaint should not have been dismissed in a summary way, as has been done in the present case, and in that view of the matter, this case deserves to be remanded to the trial Court to be heard and decided on merits according to law. ( 4 ) NOW on face of it, the impugned order dismissing the complaint is ex-facie patently indiscreet and illegal. Prima facie, it appears that the respondent No. 1 - company, is situated at Plot No. 208-502; GIDC Estate, Phase-II, Shihor and that the same cannot be false. Accordingly, if the respondents were not available at the address given by the complainant that does not necessarily mean that the address was false. Rather, it is quite possible that for whatever reasons when the Process Serving Agency went to serve the said summons, the respondents were not available and therefore, it appears to have been returned unserved. Be the case it may, but the way in which the complaint came to be dismissed is quite shocking, stunning and surprising too!! If ultimately the address of the respondents given in the complaint was not correct then in that case, some more time could and should have been given to the complainant to find out the correct address, if any. This would have been the correct way of exercising the judicial discretion which unfortunately has not been; exercised properly. The learned magistrate while trying the criminal cases cannot afford to be oblivious to the fact that primarily and essentially he is called upon to do "justice" on the merits of the case. The principal issue and concern of the learned Magistrate accordingly in all such cases filed before him is therefore to find out whether the prosecution has successfully brought-home the charge against the accused or not, and whether the accused is entitled to any benefit of reasonable doubt, and not to wander away and get lost on the wrong track!! The principal issue and concern of the learned Magistrate accordingly in all such cases filed before him is therefore to find out whether the prosecution has successfully brought-home the charge against the accused or not, and whether the accused is entitled to any benefit of reasonable doubt, and not to wander away and get lost on the wrong track!! Ignoring altogether such prime issue and concem, if the learned Magistrate just throw away the cases on the issues like the present one, which is secondary and mere procedural one than it is indeed nothing less than to mis-direct himself, abdicate judicial function/duty and perversely get rid of the cases! Such casual attitude and approach to criminal cases ultimately sadly reflects upon the judicial character. The reason is assuming even that the grievance on the secondary issue is legitimate then even that docs not and cannot white-wash the offence (s) alleged against the accused to give him clean bill. In fact these are the cases wherein the Court while issuing the summons, should see to it that the same is handed over to the complainant to personally serve upon the respondents and in case the complainant had any difficulty in service, then the police officer of the concerned area could also be so directed to accompany the complainant to serve the said summons upon the respondents at the given address. If such a practise of service of the Courts order is followed, the same to great extent will take care of the avoidable problems of non-service on any ground putting an end to the belated conduct of the trial. In fact, the cases like the present one which are under the Labour Welfare Legislation wherein the complainant is a public servant and the cause involved is one in the interest of the workers, the learned magistrate ought to have taken little extra care in seeing that the cases are not just summarily thrown away without giving due opportunity to the complainant to do the needful in the matter. In view of the aforesaid discussion/decision, there is indeed no alternative left to this Court but to remand the matter to the trial court to decide the same on merits, according to law. In view of the aforesaid discussion/decision, there is indeed no alternative left to this Court but to remand the matter to the trial court to decide the same on merits, according to law. ( 5 ) ORDINARILY, whenever such matters are placed on Admission Board and if indeed some case is made out, then the Court is required to issue "notice" to the otherside before passing any order against him/them. However, taking into consideration the special fact viz. , where the respondents have not even been served and appeared before the trial court (and even in case if appeared then even), the impugned order dismissing the complaint since it is not passed on merits vesting any right in the respondents to defend the arbitrary, perverse order of the learned Magistrate, rather this being a matter strictly between the high Court and the learned Magistrate who committed a serious and patent lapse in not discharging his duty properly by taking clementary care in exercise of the judicial duty/discretion, there is no question of giving hearing to the respondents. Not only that but these are the cases wherein even if the notice is issued, and in response to it respondents appear then even after hearing them ultimately in the overall interest of justice, the case is such which is required to be remanded. When such is an unassailable position, mechanically issuing notice to the otherside would be not only the wastage of the public time, further delaying the proceedings before the trial court but the same would also unnecessarily prejudice the respondents by putting them in inconvenience by imposing upon them costs of engaging services of learned advocate and appearing before this Court, In this view of the matter, this is one of the fittest cases wherein the matter deserves to be finally disposed of at the admission stage itself, without issuing the notice to the otherside by remanding the same to the trial Court. ( 6 ) IN the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is hereby quashed and set-aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court to be decided on merits according to law. ( 6 ) IN the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is hereby quashed and set-aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court to be decided on merits according to law. The original complainant or his successor in the Department shall appear before 15th April, 1995 and take a fixed date of next hearing and see that the notices to the respondents are duly served by him personally, and in case of any difficulty, with the assistance of the police department. .