STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MALEK SULTAN A H SHIVJI AND NAUSHAD I PADAMSEE AND ALIMOHAMED C PADAMSEE AND DAULAT I PADAMSEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four Criminal Revision Applications are directed against the common judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 324, 325, 372 and 407 of 1982 decided on 20-4-1983 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the applications and quashed the order of issuance of process passed by the learned trial Magistrate in Criminal Cases Nos. 3306/82, 2954/82, 3307/82 and 2953/82. In those four cases separate complaints were filled against the respondents by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour for certain offences alleged to have been committed under the provisions of section 25-R and section 30-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Hereinafter it will be referred to as the Act). The learned Judicial Magistrate took congiznance and issued process in those four Criminal Cases against respondents. The respondents preferred Criminal Revision Applications in the Sessions Court, Pune against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate issuing process against them. The respondents inter alia contended that the learned-Judicial Magistrate should not have issued process against them for want of valid authority as contemplated under section 39 read with section 34 of the Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge thought that the Revisions could be disposed of on deciding the above contention of the respondents and therefore, he considered the above contention and he agreed with the learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners and held that there was no delegation of powers as provided in section 39 of the Act and as such the prosecution suffered from want of valid authority. He held that the Government in those cases authorised the officer subordinate to it merely under section 34 without any delegation of its powers section 39 of the Act and therefore, the authority granted by the State Government to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour Shri P.N. Jadhav who filed the complains was not valid. In this view of the matter, without deciding other contentions raised by the present respondents, he allowed the Revisions Petitions and quashed the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate issuing process against the present respondents.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, the State has preferred these Criminal Revision Applications.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor, Shri Gangakhedkar contents that the State Government after considering the relevant facts decided to prosecute the respondents for the offence punishable under section 30-A read with section 25-FFA of the Act and the State Government by order dated 13th September, 1982 authorised Shri P.N. Jadhav, Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Pune to make a complaint for prosecution of the present respondents for closing down their undertaking without complying with the provisions of section 25-FFA, which is an offence punishable under section 30-A of the Act. Shri Jadhav was also authorised to take all steps necessary or incidental to the prosecution of the respondents. According to him, it was a valid authorisation required under section 34 of the Act and it was not necessary to delegate the powers under section 39 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the present respondent Shri Rajani, on the other hand, submits that there could not be authorisation for filling the complaint against the respondents without there being delegation of powers under section 39 of the Act. According to him, the State Government should have delegated the powers to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Pune by issuing a notification and publishing it in an Official Gazette, for the prosecution of the respondents for the said offence and only in that event the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Pune could have filed the complaints against the respondents. Thus, according to him, the authorisation of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour by the State Government without delegation of power under section 39 of the Act is bad. Mr. Rajani at this stage says that even the authorisation under the order dated 13th September, 1982 is itself a delegation of powers under section 39 and as that order is not notified in the official Gazette as required by section 39 of the Act the Assistant Commissioner of Labour could not file the complaints against the respondents.