Judgment :- P.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J. The first petitioner, Lord Krishna Bank Ltd., is a Banking Company governed by the Banking Regulation Act. Its administrative office and registered office is situated at Kochi. Lord Krishna Bank has 73 branches in different States in India. The second petitioner is the Manager of the Palakkad branch of the bank. Both the petitioners are being prosecuted as per ST. No. 290 of 1997 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Palakkad on the basis of a complaint filed under S.10(1) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the act" ). Prosecution was launched by the first respondent, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central). The allegation against the petitioner is that they being employers within the meaning of S.2(c) of the Act failed to maintain register in Form ^D' R.6 of the Equal Remuneration Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the rules"). 2. The Act was enacted by the Parliament to provide for payment of equal remuneration to men and women workers without discrimination on the ground of sex in the matter of employment. By S.1(3) of the Act, the Act is to be brought into force-on different dates as the Central Government by notification appoint. By notification No. SO/175(E) dated 6.3.1976, the Act had been made applicable to all banks, Insurance Companies and Financial Institutions with effect from 8.3.1996. 3. It is the case of the first petitioner-Bank that it has complied with all the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder. In accordance with S.8 of the Act, the first petitioner has been maintaining the necessary register in Form'D' at its administrative office at Kochi furnishing all the required particulars. 4. The case of the first respondent is that such Registers are to be maintained in every branch of the bank and that no such Register is maintained in the Palakkad branch of the Bank. 5. The question to be considered in this Crl. M.C. is whether the first petitioner-Bank is liable to maintain the Register in Form 'D' R.6in all-its branches or is it sufficient that such register is maintained in the Head Office/ Administrative Office. 6. Notification No. SO/175(E) dated 6.3.1976 shows that the Act is made applicable to Banks, Insurance Companies and Financial Institutions. M.C. is whether the first petitioner-Bank is liable to maintain the Register in Form 'D' R.6in all-its branches or is it sufficient that such register is maintained in the Head Office/ Administrative Office. 6. Notification No. SO/175(E) dated 6.3.1976 shows that the Act is made applicable to Banks, Insurance Companies and Financial Institutions. As per S.8 of the Act, every employer shall maintain such registers and other documents in relation to the workers employed by him as may be prescribed. 'Employer' is defined under S.2(c) of the Act in which it is stated that "employer" has the meaning assigned to it in clause (f) of S.2 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (3) of 1972). S.2(f) of the Payment of Gratuity Act reads as follows: "_ employer' means, in relation to any establishment, factory, mine oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop - (i) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government or a State Government, a person or authority appointed by the appropriate Government for the supervision and control of employees, or where no person or authority has been so appointed, the head of the Ministry or the Department concerned, (ii) belonging to, or under the control of, any local authority, the person appointed by such authority for the supervision and control of employees or where no person has been so appointed, the chief executive officer of the local authority, (iii) in any other case, the person who, or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment, factory, mine, oil field, plantation, port, railway company or shop, and where the said affairs are entrusted to any other person, whether called a Manager, Managing Director or by any other name, such person". A worker is defined thus under S.2(i) of the Act: "v Worker' means a worker in any establishment or employment in respect of which this Act has come into force." S.13 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make rules which includes making rules regarding registers and other documents which an employer is required to maintain under S.8 of the Act in relation to the workers employed by him. R.6 of the Rules also provides that every employer shall maintain up to date a register in relation to the workers employed by him in Form 'D' at the place where the workers are employed. 7. R.6 of the Rules also provides that every employer shall maintain up to date a register in relation to the workers employed by him in Form 'D' at the place where the workers are employed. 7. The concept of employment involves three ingredients: (1) employer, (2) employee and (3) the contract of employment. The employer is one who employs, ie., one who engages the services of other persons. The employee is one who works for another for hire. The employment is the contract of service between the employer and the employee whereunder the employee agrees to serve the employer subject to his control and supervision: see the decision reported in Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P. AIR 1958 SC 388. 8. Appointment of the employees of the Bank is made by the Head Office. Contract of employment is issued by the Head Office. The branch Manager has no power or authority to make appointments or to issue order of appointment. In such circumstances, it. cannot be said that the employer in relation to the workers working in a particular branch of the bank is the branch Manager. Employer can only be the bank represented by the first petitioner. 9. The object of the Act is to see that no discrimination is made on the basis of sex and that men and women workers are paid equal remuneration. Interpretation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules should be made bearing this in mind. While interpreting a particular provision in the Act or the Rules, the object of the statute for which it is enacted should be borne in mind. It is held so in the decision reported in New India Sugar Mills v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, AIR 1963 SC 1207 thus: "Itis a recognised rule of interpretation of statutes that the expression used therein should ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they best harmonies with the object of the statute, and which effectuate the object of the Legislature. If an expression is susceptible of a narrow or technical meaning, as well as a popular meaning the Court would be justified in assuming that the Legislature used the expression in the sense which would carry out its object and reject that which renders the exercise of its powers invalid. In interpreting a statute the Court cannot ignore its aim and object". 10. In interpreting a statute the Court cannot ignore its aim and object". 10. It is seen from the statements of objections and reasons that the Act is enacted to provide for payment of equal remuneration to men and women workers for the same work or work of a similar nature and for prevention of discrimination in payment on the ground of sex. The object will not in any way be defeated if Form'D' prescribed as per R.6 of the Rules is maintained in the Head Office of the Bank. Only due to the reason that it is stated in R.6 of the Rules that every employer shall maintain up to date a register in relation to the workers employed by him in Form'D' at the place where the workers are employed, it cannot be said that registers are to be maintained in each branch of the Bank. The words "the place where the workers are employed" cannot be independently read divorced from the words "employer' and the "workers employed by him." As already stated, employer is the Bank and not the branch Manager. Workers are not employed by the branch Manager, but by the Bank. At the branch level, there is no employer, So, if a harmonious construction is given to the words contained in R.6 of the Rules bearing in mind the provisions in the Act and also the aims and reasons for enacting such provisions, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the registers are to be maintained at the Head Office and not at each branch of the Bank. It is not a case where such registers are not maintained at the Head Office of the Bank. In the circumstances, the insistence on the part of the first respondent that such registers are to be maintained at the branch level cannot be upheld. Such insistence on the part of the first respondent is uncalled for and opposed to the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules. Complaint is filed with the sole allegation that registers are not maintained at the branch. Taking consequence of the complaint on the basis of such allegation and prosecuting the petitioners will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 11. Hence, all further proceedings in S.T. No. 290 of 1997 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Palakkad will stand quashed. Taking consequence of the complaint on the basis of such allegation and prosecuting the petitioners will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 11. Hence, all further proceedings in S.T. No. 290 of 1997 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Palakkad will stand quashed. The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed as above.