LAWS(BOM)-2011-7-175

VIVECK GOENKA Vs. RAJU

Decided On July 19, 2011
VIVECK GOENKA Appellant
V/S
RAJU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Admit. HEARD forthwith by consent of parties. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant prays for to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.9.2009 in Criminal (ULPA) No. 37 of 2009 whereby Judge, 4th Labour Court, Nagpur was pleased to issue process under Section 48 (1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.

(2.) It appears that Criminal (ULP) No. 609 of 1998 before the Labour Court against (1) Indian Express Newspapers (Bom) Limited, Jagat Apartment, Ravi Nagar Square, through its Branch Manager and (2) Indian Express Newspapers (Bom) Limited, Express Tower, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021, through its General Manager seeking relief of reinstatement with continuity in service and full back-wages. That Complaint 4th (ULP) was partly allowed by the Judge, Labour Court, Nagpur vide judgment and order dated 4th February 2006 whereby termination of complainant/respondent no. 1 herein was held illegal and it was accordingly set aside. Consequently, the respondents therein were directed to reinstate the complainant in service on his former post with continuity of service from 2.8.1996 and they were also directed to pay 50% of the back- wages to the complainant from 22.8.2000 to 11.9.2003. Since the judgment & order of the 4th Labour Court dated 4.2.2006 was not complied, present respondent no.1 filed Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 37 of 2009 under Section 48 of the Act of 1971 against present respondent no. 2 and present applicant Viveck Goenka, Managing Director/President of the Indian Express Newspapers (Bom) Limited, Mumbai. By impugned order, the Judge, 4th Labour Court, Nagpur issued process against the present applicant and respondent no. 2.

(3.) The view taken by this Court in V.K. Jain's case seems no longer a good law, because the Apex Court in Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited & anr v. State of Maharashtra & anr, 2009 2 SCC 370 has held that the High Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr. P. C. and existence of alternate remedy was not a complete bar for entertaining such an application. THE Apex Court has observed that inherent jurisdiction of the high Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. THErefore, the argument that remedy under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is not available to the applicant, cannot be accepted.