R P PATIL Vs. S G DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One complaint for an offence under S.26(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is hereinafter called 'the Act', was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum, against the petitioner who was then Resident Engineer of Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd. The Complaint was filed not by the Labour Officer authorised for the purpose; but, by the Asst Labour Commr, Belgaum Division, who was in additional charge of the duties of the Labour Officer. The petitioner contended before the lower Courts and repeats the same before me that that complaint is not valid and the Court shall not take cognizance of the offence on that complaint. To put it in other words, the contention is that the Labour Officer alone was a designated authority to rile the complaint, and that his statutory function to file the complaint could not have been performed by the Asst Labour Commr who was placed in additional charge of the duties of the Labour Officer.

(2.) The above contention is based on the well-known principle that a person who is placed in additional charge of the duties of a post could only perform the current duties and not the statutory functions of the incumbent of that post. The learned Magistrate did not accept that contention. So also the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that the above principle is not attracted to a case where a superior office is placed in additional charge of the duties of an inferior officer. He has also observed that the filing of a complaint for an offence under S.26(2) of the Act is not one of the statutory functions of the Labour Officer, but it may be said to be one of his current duties, which duty the Asst Labour Commr was competent to perform since he was placed in additional charge of the duties of the Labour Officer.

(3.) I will now refer to the relevant provisions of the Act bearing on the question with a little more facts of the case. The Government on 23rd July 1971, made an order as follows :