RAJ KUMAR GUPTA Vs. T GOVERNOR DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 16/04/1991, the first respondent passed the following order, acting under the provisions of Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") :

(2.) NOW, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 34 of the said Act read with, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Notification No. 2/2/61-Judl.I, dated the 24/03/1961 and after having considered the matter carefully, the Lt. Governor of the Union Territory of Delhi, is pleased to authorise Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Patron, Garden Silk Mills, Karamchari Sangh (Regd.), 5239-Ajmeri Gate, Delhi to file a complaint in the court of competent jurisdiction, against the abovesaid establish-ment and the following of its Officers, which is punishable under section 25-U of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended up-to-date. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_556_1_1997Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) THE Delhi High Court found itself unable to agree with the view taken to the contrary by a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in S. N. Hada v. THE Binny Ltd. Staff Association, 1989 Lab IC 165. THE identical question had been raised before the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court and the Full Bench held that if the view was taken that only the Government or its agent could file the complaint, then the provisions of Section 30, providing for the filing of the comlaint by or on behalf of a trade union or a business which was affected, would become redundant. This could not have been the intention of the Legislature. Viewed from any angle, the Full Bench found it difficult to hold that under Section 34 a private body or a person other than an agent of the Government could not be authorised by the Government to file a complaint.