JAYWANT VAMANRAO KADU (PATIL), THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, SANGLI DIST. COOP. BANK LTD. SANGLI Vs. BANK EMPLOYEES UNION KOLHAPUR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the process issued against the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 48 of M.R.T.U. and PULP Act, 1971 by the Labour Court, Sangli, by its order dated 22nd Aug. 2013. The petitioner challenged the said order in revision (ULP) No.70 of 2013 before the Industrial Court, Kolhapur. However, his revision came to be dismissed by order dated 15th Feb. 2014.

(2.) The facts which are relevant for deciding this petition are to the effect that in view of the order passed by the Industrial Court at Sangli on 23rd June 2009 in Complaint ULP No.5 of 2009, the petitioner herein was restrained from holding written examination as pre condition for granting promotions during pendency of the said complaint.

(3.) As per the grievance of the respondent union, despite such interim order passed by the industrial court on 23rd June 2009, the petitioner herein proceeded to hold written examination as a precondition for granting promotions. The written examination was held on 7th April 2011 and thereby the petitioners had committed the contempt of court order and thereby become liable for prosecution under section 48 of MRTU and PULP Act. It is the case of the petitioners that they have not committed the breach of any order and if at all any contempt was committed, then, the limitation for issuance of process against the petitioner was one year, both under section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act and also under section 468 of Crimial P.C. In the instant case, however, the complaint is filed much beyond the period of one year i.e. on 17th July 2011. Hence, it is urged that the complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation. Therefore, the labour court should not have taken cognisance of the said offence. As the labour court has issued the process against the petitioner despite the complaint being barred by limitation under the provision of Contempt of Courts Act and also under section 468 of Crimial P.C., the impugned order of issuance of process is liable to be quashed and set aside.