VIKRAM KIRLOSKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC. (for short 'the Code'), the petitioners who have been arraigned as accused persons in C.C.No. 1097/2004 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.). and JMFC Harihar in Davangere District, have sought for quashing the criminal prosecution launched against them in the said case.

(2.) Facts which have led to filing of these petitions in brief are as under: Respondent No. 1 herein namely VS.Kuber was an employee of M/s. Mysore Kirlosker Limited, Unit III Sattur, later shifted to Yantrapur, Harihar. By order dated 30.9.1986, the Management of Mysore Kirlosker Limited dismissed him from service. Contending that his dismissal from service by the Management is illegal and contrary to law, respondent No. 1 filed petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the ID Act'). The Labour Court by award dated 8.7.2002 set aside the order passed by the Management dismissing respondent No.1 from service and directed his reinstatement into the service with full back wages. The said award came to be published, as required by Section 17 of the ID Act, by the Government on 11.4.2003, and the award came into effect from 12.5.2003 as provided by Section 17-A of the ID Act. As the Management did not reinstate him as per the award of the Labour Court, respondent No.1 approached the Labour Commissioner to authorise him as required by Section 34(1) of the ID Act, to file a complaint against the Management for offence punishable under Section 29 of the ID Act, for breach of the terms of the award passed by the Labour Court. To the show cause notice issued by the Labour Commissioner, the Management filed its objections inter alia contending that the company is not working from 1.1.2001 and the company has been declared as sick industry by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short 'BIFR') and BIFR on 31.10.2002, has recommended for winding up of the company and the said issue is before the High Court as such, the Management is not in a position to implement the award. However, the Labour Commissioner by order dated 16.7.2004 authorised respondent No. 1 to file complaint against the Management for offence punishable under Section 29 of the ID Act. Pursuant to such authorisation, respondent No. 1 filed complaint under Section 34 of the ID Act r/w Section 200 of the Code against the petitioners herein. The petitioners 1 and 2 in Crl.P. No.2846/2005 have been arraigned as accused 1 and 3 while petitioner in Crl.P.No.2577/2005 has been arraigned as accused No.2. In the complaint Accused 1 to 3 are described as the Managing Director, Ex-Managing Director and the Company Secretary respectively of Mysore kirlosker Limited. The complainant inter alia contended that the accused are liable to implement the award of the Labour Court and in spite of the same they have failed to implement the award as such they have committed the offence punishable under Section 29 of the ID Act. The learned Magistrate before whom the complaint was presented, took cognizance of the offence alleged, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and by forming an opinion about existence of a prima facie case against the accused persons, directed registration of the case and issue of summons to accused 1 to 3. After coming to know of the same, the petitioners presented these petitions seeking to quash the criminal prosecution launched against them.

(3.) Upon service of notice of these petitions, respondent No. 1 has appeared through his counsel. Subsequently, the official liquidator attached to this Court came to be impleaded as respondent No.2 and upon service of notice, he has appeared through his counsel.