BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAVAN LTD Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was initially filed under Article 226 of the constitution for quashing the order dated 16.1.1992 passed by District Magistrate, Jhansi granting sanction under section 16 of the D.P. Industrial Disputes Act (herein after referred to as the Act) for the prosecution of the petitioners and directing the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jhansi to file a complaint under section 14-A of the Act against them. Since at the time of the presentation of the writ petition, a criminal complaint had already been filed under section 14-A of the Act against the petitioners in the court of C.J.M. Jhansi on 31.1.1992, a division Bench of this court passed an order on 18.2.1992 permitting the petitioners to convert the petition into one under section 482 Cr. P.C. Thereafter the writ petition was converted into a petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. and the principal relief claimed therein is quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 332 of 1992 (State of UP. v. Anura) Sharma and others) pending in the court of C.J .M. Jhansi. The parties have exchanged affidavits and therefore, the petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage with the consent of the parties.

(2.) The fact which emerge out of the affidavits filed by the respective parties are that Ram Krishna Gupta respondent No. 4 was appointed as senior clerk in Sri Vaidya Nath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. Jhansi on 20.7.1973 but his services were terminated on 20.12.1973. At the instance of respondent No. 4 the State Government made a reference to Labour Court (5) Kanpur on 28.11.1974 under section 10(1)(c) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (Act No. XIV of 1947) to the effect as to whether the termination of service of the workman on 20.12.1973 was valid and if not to what benefit/compensation the workman was entitled to get. The reference made by the State Government was registered as Adjudication Case No. 321 of 1974 and was renumbered as case No. 218 of 1978. The Labour Court gave its award on 30.8.1979 directing reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and back wages w.e.f. the date of termination of service till the date of his actual reinstatement and other benefits. The employers challenged the award of the Labour court by filing writ petition No. 1681 of 1980 which was admitted and the operation of the award was stayed on 22.2.1980. An application was moved by respondent No. 4 for vacating the stay order when the interim order was modified on 10.4.1980 and the employers were directed to deposit the entire sum of money due to the workman under the award as arrears of salary upto date within a month and they were further directed to deposit the salary of the workman for the period subsequent to the date of the award with the Labour Court regularly. On 12.10.1984 an order was passed whereby the employers were given liberty to take work from respondent No. 4 on payment bf wages that became payable to him in terms of the award and for this purpose he was directed to report for duty by 29.10.1984. It is admitted to both the sides that respondent No. 4 reported for duty on 29.10.1984 and he was taken back in service and the employers paid him salary (or the subsequent months. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed by the High Court on 17.12.1985. Subsequently respondent No. 4 moved an application before the Deputy Labour Commissioner Jhansi on 27.10.1986 under section 6-H of the Act stating that he had not been paid the entire money due to him under the. award given by the Labour Court in Adjudication case No. 218 of 1978. It was prayed that the employers be directed to pay him Rs. 50,200/- towards arrears of salary after including dearness allowance, house rent, bonus and other benefits which he had been held entitled under the award. This application was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 1987. After hearing the parties, the Deputy Labour Commissioner Jhansi by its order dated 23.3.1987 held that the workman, was entitled to Rs. 67,912.10; out of which the employers, had already deposited Rs. 36,596.75 and therefore, the employers were liable to pay Rs. 31,315.35 to him. The employers then gave a cheque for Rs. 31,315.35 dated 21.4. 1987 to respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4 had in the mean while filed another application under section 15(2) of payment of Wages Act on 15.4.1987 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jhansi alleging that the employers had not paid him Rs. 31,315,35 and 10 per cent house rent as directed by the order dated 23.3.1987 and therefore a direction be issued for payment of Rs. 44,446.85 and also Rs. 4,44,468.50 as compensation. This application was registered .as P.W. Case No. 36 of 1987. The payment of wages Authority/Deputy Labour Commissioner by his order dated 7.6.1988 held that the employers had-given a cheque for Rs. 31,315.35 to respondent No. 4 on 21.4.1987 and accordingly directed the employers to pay Rs. 25/ - only as compensation and Rs. 20/- as costs to him. This amount of Rs. 45/- was also paid by the employers to respondent No. 4 by cheque on 16.6.1988. It appears that sometime in the year 1991, the respondent No. 4 moved an application before the District Magistrate Jhansi under section 14A of the Act for giving sanction for the prosecution of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that they had not complied with the award given by Labour/Court in Adjudication Case No. 218 of 1978. After hearing the parties, the District Magistrate Jhansi has granted the requisite sanction for prosecution of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 under section 14A of the Act on 16.1.1992.

(3.) After the sanction has been granted by the District Magistrate, the Deputy Labour Commissioner Jhansi has filed a criminal complaint under section 14 A of the Act against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and two others in the court of CJM, Jhansi The case set up in the complaint is that the accused are responsible for the implementation of the award given against Sri Vaidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. Jhansi: that a dispute between the employers and the workman Sri Ram' Krishna Gupta was referred to Labour Court (5) Kanpur where it was registered as Adjudication case No. 218 of 1978 and an award was given on 30.8.1979 which was published on 21.11.1979, that as per the direction of the award, the workman was reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages and other benefit, that the workman has not been given seniority w.e.f. 20.12.1973 and other benefits in accordance with the award, that the employers had not implemented the 5lward in full and therefore they had committed an offence under section 14 A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. A copy of the complaint dated 31.1.1992 has been filed as annexure SA 1 to the supplementary affidavit. It is admitted to the party that the learned Magistrate has passed an order summoning the accused for trial. The present petition has been tiled for quashing of this complaint and the summoning order passed against the accused: