STATE Vs. DIAMOND PRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by the State, the order of acquittal dated 28th June, 1978 passed by the Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chickmagalur in C.C. No. 381 of 1977 acquitting the respondents who were the accused therein of the offence under S.18(3) punishable under S. 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is challenged.

(2.) The relevant facts may be narrated as follows : Dr. G M. Prabhu, who is said to have expired in August, 1973, was the owner and proprietor of a coffee estate called Bokkekhan estate, Kesavinamane Post Chickmagalur and P.W. 3 Hameed was an employee under Dr. Prabhu. The service of P.W. 3 was terminated by Dr. Prabhu and as such he raised a dispute. The Labour Court, Chickmagalur passed an award in favour of P.W. 3; and that award was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 3-1-1974. The Labour Court directed that P.W. 3 should be re-instated in his post. The direction remained uncomplied with. It appears, that P.W. 3 represented to the Commissioner of Labour that though the Labour Court had directed that he should be reinstated, he was not reinstated and there was correspondence between the Commissioner of Labour and the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who had succeeded Dr. Prabhu on his death Ultimately, the Commissioner of Labour authorised the Labour Officer (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) by his order No. lAA/Cr. 12/75-76 dated 12th April, 1976 to prosecute the accused in consultation with the Public Prosecutor for not implementing the award of the Labour Court The complainant filed a complaint in the Court of the J. M. F. C., Chickmagalur on 6-10-1976. He also filed an application, along with the complaint, praying that the delay in filing the complaint be condoned and the complaint be entertained

(3.) It is clear from the order sheet maintained in the case that on 6-10-1976 itself the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the accused. He did not pass any order on the application filed by the complainant praying for condonation of delay in filing the complaint Further scrutiny of the order sheet shows that on 22-9-1977 the Magistrate has recorded as follows " The question of limitation is left open for arguments ".