PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. S A JABBAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the State of Madras against the acquittal of the accused in S. T. R. No. 248 of 1964 by the Additional First Class Magistrate No. 2, Salem. In view of the limited scope of the enquiry before me, which is confined to a specific legal point, and in view of the circumstances that the other facts are admitted, it is sufficient to refer to the facts very briefly. The accused Jabbur is the proprietor of Koganapuram Transports, Salem. On palaniappan who was working as a cleaner in the said company was dismissed from service. On the representation made by the Motor Workers Union, the State government made a reference to the Labour court at Coimbatore under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, for a determination of as to whether the dismissal of palaniappan by the accused's company was proper. The Labour Court passed an award, holding that the dismissal was improper, and directing the reinstatement of palaniappan. Repeated attempts were made first of all by Palaniappan, and then by the Union to have the award relating to reinstatement enforced. But the accused failed to comply with it. Thereafter the Government was moved to take action and G. O. Ms. No. 2008 (Labour) was issued on 6-4-1964 in the following terms:

(2.) THE Collector of Salem is requested to take necessary action for the prosecution of Sri S. A. Jabbar, who is the proprietor of the said Konganapuram Transports salem, and submit a report to the Government is due course. " (2) Thereafter, the Asst. Public Prosecutor, Grade I Salem, purporting to represent the State filed a complaint in the lower Court against the accused for contravening section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The complaint also alleged that in pursuance of the orders of the Government in the G. O. cited above, the Collector of Salem had directed the complainant to file the present complaint. With the complaint was enclosed a copy of the Government Order and also the order of the collector dated 3-4-1964, containing the necessary directions issued to the asst. Public Prosecutor to file the actual complaint. The case was fully heard by the learned Magistrates and evidence was taken both for the complaint and the accused. Notwithstanding the plea of "not guilty" by the accused, the finding of the learned Magistrate was that the accused did not implement the terms of the award and consequently his failure to reinstate the worker concerned (P. W. 2) was certainly an offence under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. This finding of fact by the learned Magistrate is not disputed before me. After going through the evidence. I am in agreement with it.

(3.) BUT before the lower court, there was an argument based upon the legality of the complaint filed by the asst. Public Prosecutor, and whether it involved a strict compliance with the provisions of section 34 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which contains the provisions for taking cognisance of an offence under the Act, in the following terms: