SANKARA DOSS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in S.T.C.No. 58 of 1992 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vandivash, has filed this petition under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in the above case and quash the same.

(2.) THE short facts are: THE respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioner for an offence under Sec. 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which I shall hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. THE allegations in it are briefly as follows: THE II Additional Labour Court, Madras under the provisions of the Act, in I.D.No. 569 of 1984, has passed an award that T. Janakiraman, should be reinstated in service. But the accused has not complied with the said award and consequently, he is liable to be punished under Sec. 29 of the said Act.

(3.) THE clause regarding further fine for a continuing offence would come into play, where there was a first conviction and again the same accused was prosecuted for the continuing offence. I am clear that this enabling clause to impose the higher fine would not deprive the character of the offence, being the continuing one. In Bhagirath Kanoria v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1688: 1984 Lab.I.C. 1578: 1984 S.C.C.(Crl.) 590: (1984) 4 S.C.C. 222: (1984) 3 Comp.L.J. 49, the Apex Court has held that non-payment of the employer's contribution to the provident fund before the due date is a continuing offence, and therefore, the period of limitation prescribed by Sec. 468 cannot have any application.