PRESIDENT CINEMA WORKERS UNION Vs. GOPAL NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by the President, Cinema Workers Union, against the order dated 3-6-83 passed by the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C. 2303/80 dismissing the complaint as barred by limitation.

(2.) The material a Negations leading to the complaint are: The workmen of Sujatha Theatre, of which A1 is the Propriet or and A2 was the Manager (now submitted by learned Counsel Shri Venkataramanaiah that he has passed away) were not paid as per the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. The workmen were forced to work for more than 8 hours without being given any overtime wages. Their service conditions were very poor and they had no security of service. In order to improve their service conditions and to have security of service, the workers joined the Cinema Workers Union i.e., the complainant Union. On behalf of the workmen, the complainant Union placed a charter of demands, demanding more wages and better service conditions, The Management did not savour it. Ultimately, the Management terminated the services of two persons namely Abdul Hameed and Ramu. An industrial dispute was raised for the reinstatement of these workers with back wages. The industrial dispute ended in failure and the matter was referred by the Government for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court passed an Award in Ref.No. 162/ 76 directing the Management to reinstate the two workmen with continuity of service and back wages. The said Award was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 30-3-78. The Management, notwithstanding the said Award, did not reinstate the two workmen. The complainant requested the Labour Commissioner, Karnataka, Bangalore to authorise the complainant to file a complaint in the appropriate Court for non-implementation of the Award. Accordingly, the Labour Commissioner passed an order authorising the complainant to prosecute the Management for the breach or non-implementation of the Award. That order passed by the Labour Commissioner is dated 6-9-79. Hence, the complaint was filed against the Proprietor and Manager of the Theatre under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(3.) An application was filed for and on behalf of accused Nos. 1 and 2 that the complaint was barred by limitation as per Section 468 Cr.P.C. and that the Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence and requested the trial Court to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.