REVA DRY CLEANERS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayer is that the order dated February 23, 1993 passed by the respondent No. 2, rejecting the application of the employer, the petitioner, for staying the proceedings before the Labour Court. 1, Kanpur, U.P. in adjudication case No,65 of 1992, Om Prakash Shukla (workman) v. . Reva Dry Cleaners, in a Reference under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial disputes Act (compendiously the Act) may be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No. 3, Om Prakash Shukla, was working as Counter Boy in the petitioner's firm with effect from June 3, 1983. The services of the respondent No, 3 were terminated with effect from September 29, 1990. The respondent No. 3 raised an industrial dispute and State of U.P. made a reference under Section 4-K of the Act as follows: "kya sevayojako dwara Sri Om Prakash Shukla putra Sri Pyare Lal Shukla counter man ko dinank November 20, 1990 se seva se prathak/vanchit kiya jana uchit evam vaidhanik hai, yadhi nahi to sabandhit sharamik kya hit labh/chattipurti pana ka ad-hikari hai, kis anya thithi yadhi kis vivran sahit."

(3.) The proceedings before the Labour Court are pending. The application moved by the employer, the petitioner, to stay the proceedings, having been rejected by the impugned order dated February 23, 1993, the present petition has been filed with the relief to quash the order. The criminal proceedings against the workman, respondent No. 3, were pending as he was alleged to have embezzled the amount of Rs. 6,000/- in between December, 1989 to July, 1990. The first information report was also lodged to that effect under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigations have been completed and the charges has been submitted. Criminal Case (Crime No. 74 of 1991, State of V.P. v. Om Prakash Shukla) is pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, VII Kanpur. The question for consideration in this petition was as to whether during the pendency of the criminal proceeding, the proceeding before the Labour Court could be stayed?