GURUSWAMY Vs. P MUTHUSWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who have been arrayed as accused 4 and 5 in the private complaint seeks to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 539 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Coimbatore.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case is as follows: 2 The complainant is the Branch President of the Trade Union namely Kovai Mavatta poriyiyal Thozhilalar Sangam affiliated to the AITUC. On 07. 11. 2001, the first accused company declared suspension of operation of work in its factory and subsequently closed down its factory and that on behalf of the first accused to 3, 4 and 5 entered into a settlement under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial disputes Act. On 30. 01. 2003, the accused has agreed to pay gratuity amount due and other dues to the workers and that the accused promised to honour its commitment. On the request of the accused, two separate settlements under section 18 (1) of Industrial Disputes Act were entered into between second and third accused with the workers separately on 11. 07. 2004. Further allegation is that the accused had attempted to remove the machinery from the factory and that while it was objected by the workers the accused had issued a cheque bearing No. 517144 dated 21. 11. 2005for a sum of Rs. 8,64,707/- drawn on Karur vysya Bank, Opanakar Street. When the cheque was presented for encashment by the complainant, it was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds. At the request of the first accused, the cheques were represented again and even on representation the cheques met the same fate. It appears that the complainant has sent two legal notices issued on 06. 04. 2006 and the same was received by the accused 1, 3 and 5 on 12. 04. 2006 and the second accused on 17. 04. 2006 and the fourth accused on 30. 04. 2006. In view of the non-payment of the cheque amount the present complaint had been filed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that except the bald allegation that the petitioners are the Directors in the first accused company, there is no other averment indicating that the petitioners were incharge of and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company. He would further submit that the petitioners are not the signatory to the cheque and based on the general statement made in the complaint no vicarious liability could be fastened on the petitioners.