HINDUSTAN TELEPRINTERS LIMITED Vs. A S MOHAMED YUSUF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 10-8-1989 of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I., Egmore, Madras, in E.O.C.C. No. 286 of 1989 on his file.

(2.) The short facts of the prosecution case is as follows :- The complainant/appellant M/s. Hindustan Teleprinters Ltd. G.S.T. Road, Guindy, Chennai 32 by its Senior Personnel Officer, E.S. Vankatraman, filed the private complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O. 1, Egmore, Madras 8, u/S. 630 of the Companies Act on the allegation that the accused respondent was found in possession of 940.20 grams of metal without proper authority and disciplinary proceedings were initiated and on 19-3-1984 u/S. 15(2) of the Standing Orders of the Company, chargesheet was given to him. The accused/respondent gave his explanation on 23-3-1984 and the enquiry officer submitted a report that the charge against the accused had been proved. Thereafter the accused/respondent was dismissed from the services of the company. The company submitted an application to the Industrial Tribunal to approve the order of dismissal. It appears that since favourable order was not passed, the matter was taken to the High Court. The accused/respondent was allotted official quarters bearing door No. A. 40 as his residence. After his dismissal from the services of the company, the accused/respondent is not entitled to continue in possession of the official quarters and notices dated 19-5-1984, 20-6-1984, 25-7-1984 and 14-9-1984 were given to the accused/respondent to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the official quarters. However, the respondent had not vacated the quarters and is continuing in illegal possession of the said quarters, 1850 employees are working in the company of the complainant. However there are 220 quarters only. Every year applications are received from the employees. They are allotted quarters on the basis of the criteria evolved by the company. The possession of the official quarters by the accused/respondent even after his dismissal from the company is an offence punishable u/S. 630 of the Companies Act.

(3.) The accused/respondent resisted the complaint stating that the industrial tribunal refused approval to the order of dismissal passed by the enquiry officer and the matter is pending on the file of the High Court and therefore it should be deemed he continues in the services of the company, and he is not liable to vacate the official quarters. Inter alia, he also contended that the Senior Personnel Officer was not a competent person to file the complaint on behalf of the company and the complaint as filed was bad as per the by laws of the said company.