Judgment :- 1. These petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who were arrayed as an accused in summary trial cases in STC Nos.1234 and 1235 of 2010 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandy, Kanyakumari District. 2. The Inspector of Plantations, Nagercoil, the respondent herein, has filed charge sheets against the petitioners, for the alleged offences punishable under Section 8 of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (National & Festival Holidays) Act, 1958 (in short, NAFT Act) r/w Rule 5 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (National & Festival Holidays) Rules, 1959 (in short, the Rules) since the petitioners have failed to file the list of Holidays for the year 2010 on or before 31.12.2009 by the Petitioners. 3. According to the petitioner, an Estate by name, Kothalampallam Estate belonged to his father Mr. Nagamani, who died in the year 1981 and during his life time, it was partitioned among three sons, viz., the petitioners herein and one N.Subramaniam, and their respective shares were formed and renamed as Pioneer Siphonia Estate, Pioneer Nagamony Plantations and Pioneer Paramount Estate and there were enjoying by managing the same individually. Thereafter, the petitioners herein, had partitioned their estates among their sons and thereby, their respective estates, viz., Pioneer Paramount Estate and Pioneer Siphonia Estate became divided into Pioneer Paramount A, Pioneer Paramount B, Pioneer Siphonia A, B and C Estates respectively. While so, despite the fact that the above said estates were divided, the respondent issued notices under the provisions of the NAFT Act in the name of the above said estates, showing the petitioners as the employer of the said estates. 4. According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), the estates owned by the petitioners are the plantations and even though they were not registered as per the Plantation Labour Act, the above said Act and Rules are applicable and a statutory duty is cast upon the petitioners as per the said provisions, that they have to declare 4 national holidays and 5 festival holidays and they are also required to send Form V with the details of leave declared. The NAFT Act is applicable to any plantation and since the Minimum Wages Act is applicable to the employment in any plantation, i.e. Estate which is maintained for the purpose of growing Cinchona rubber or coffee, the petitioners have to follow the provisions of the Minimum Wages and consequently, the provisions of the NAFT Act is having coverage over it. He also submitted that the petitioners were given an opportunity before launching the prosecution, but the petitioners failed to comply with the provisions of the Act. 5. Assailing the prosecution proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 is not applicable to the petitioners’ estate as already held by the Court below in STC Nos.1471 and 1472 of 1993 and when that be so, the NAFT Act which came into force with effect from 1.4.1959, i.e. later to the Plantations Labour Act, 1951, is also not applicable to the petitioners’ estate since the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 has been bodily incorporated into NAFT Act and therefore, the proceedings initiated by invoking the provisions under NAFT Act cannot be sustained and hence, the said proceedings are liable to be quashed. 6. The above contention of the learned counsel, in my opinion, cannot have any force. As could be seen from the provisions of the NAFT Act, Section 2(d) defines the meaning of “establishment” and clause (iii) includes “plantation” as defined in clause (f) of Section 2 of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 (Central Act LXIX of 1951). Section 2(f) of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 describes the meaning of “plantation” i.e. any plantation to which, the Plantations Labour Act, whether wholly or in part, applies and includes offices, hospitals, dispensaries, schools, and any other premises used for any purpose connected with such plantation, but does not include any factory or premises to which the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948. Therefore, it is clear that only the meaning of “plantation” has been borrowed from the Plantations Labour Act and legislatively incorporated in the definition clause in NAFT Act and not the entire Act itself. Therefore, it is clear that only the meaning of “plantation” has been borrowed from the Plantations Labour Act and legislatively incorporated in the definition clause in NAFT Act and not the entire Act itself. Hence, it cannot be construed that the entire Plantations Labour Act has been bodily incorporated in NAFT Act and that by virtue of earlier orders in STC No.1471 & 1472 of 2003, the Plantations Labour Act would not apply to the petitioners’ estates and hence, the petitioners cannot take the stand that the proceedings initiated by invoking the provisions of NAFT Act cannot be sustained and they are liable to be set aside. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in “C.V.Raman versus Bank of India” reported in 1988-II-LLJ 423, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that nationalised banks were exempted from the purview of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, not because they do not fall within the definition under Section 2(6) of the Shops Act, but because they are specifically exempted under Section 4(1)(c) of the Shops Act. Therefore, applying the above ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Plantations Labour Act has been covered by the NAFT Act and thereby, the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the NAFT Act are liable to be sustained, is untenable and cannot be accepted. Further, the petitioners cannot take shelter by virtue of the order passed in STC Nos.1471 and 1472 of 2003 at all times since the above said issue has not been dealt with in the said order and it was dealt with the issue regarding whether the Plantations Labour Act would apply to the petitioners’ estates, but not dealt with the issue whether the NAFT Act would apply. However, as discussed supra, in view of the fact that only legislative incorporation regarding ‘plantation’ alone has been carried and incorporated in NAFT Act, it is held that NAFT Act will apply to the petitioners’ estate irrespective of number of workmen engaged therein. 7. However, as discussed supra, in view of the fact that only legislative incorporation regarding ‘plantation’ alone has been carried and incorporated in NAFT Act, it is held that NAFT Act will apply to the petitioners’ estate irrespective of number of workmen engaged therein. 7. Apart from the above, the learned counsel for the petitioners also raised the following contentions, viz., a. that the prosecution has not established before filing the above case that the Petitioners’ estates namely Pioneer Siphonia Estate and Piorneer Paramount Estate and fall within the definition of Industrial Establishment as per Section 2 (e) (iii) of the Act, 1958. b. that the respondent has not established that the Petitioner’s estate is covered by the provision of the Act and they have not shown in the complaint that the Petitioners’ estates were having more than 5 Hectares and more than 15 employees were employed therein. Unless and until this fundamental fact is stated in the complaint, and the Petitioners estate are covered under the provisions of the Act, 1951, the Respondent cannot file any prosecution for the contravention of the provision of the Act, 1958. c. that the Petitioners’ estates were not at all in existence during the relevant period. The said estates were partitioned as early as on 6.10.2008; d. that the Petitioners also gave repeated representations to the Respondent dated 5.8.2002, 6.8.2002 and 17.3.2003 stating that the said petitioners’ estates were not in existence and the same were partitioned. e. that the Assistant Commissioner of Employees Provident Fund passed an order dated 26.11.2008 in favour of the Petitioners stating that the Enforcement Officer appointed under the Act has reported that there were three estates maintained separately and the employees were paid salary separately by the respective employers. f. The Respondent also failed to show that the Petitioner is the employer as contemplated under the provisions of the Act, 1958. g. Also the prosecution ought to have produced any document to show that the Petitioner was the employer as contemplated under the provisions of the Act during the relevant period. 8. On going through the above said contentions, this Court is of the view that these are the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided by this Court since they are required to be proved by adducing both oral and documentary evidence. 8. On going through the above said contentions, this Court is of the view that these are the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided by this Court since they are required to be proved by adducing both oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, the petitioners can very well raise the above said contentions as grounds of defence and establish the same, except 7(b) mentioned supra in view of the finding of this Court in last sentence of para 6 of this order. For all the reasons mentioned above, this Court is of the view that the proceedings in STC Nos.1234 and 1235 of 2010 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandy, cannot be quashed and accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. The Magistrate is directed to take up the matter and shall not adjourn the same more than three working days at any point of time and dispose of the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.