REGIONAL DIRECTOR Vs. M B ACHAREKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three applications can be disposed of by a common Order as the point involved therein is common.

(2.) The applicant herein filed the complaint against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Judge. In each complaint it was alleged by the applicant that the offence under Section 85(a)of the ESI Act has been committed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 as a result of non payment of contribution. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared before the Court and attended the matter. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed an application dated 13th November, 2000, praying for dismissal of the complaint contending that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 should get the benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Common Cause Case. Those applications were heard and decided by the learned trial Judge by Order dated 1st December, 2000. The learned trial Judge granted those applications and discharged the respondent Nos.1 to 3. It is this Order dated 1st December, 2000 in each case is the subject matter of these three respective applications.

(3.) I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Mehta appearing on behalf of the applicant. As nobody was present on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have gone unrepresented. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta pointed out to this Court that the Order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the Common Cause Case came to be reviewed and the Supreme Court in the case of P. Ramchandrarao Vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2002 SC 1856 page 1856, came to the conclusion that the judgment of Common Cause is no longer good law. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that these revision applications were filed on 12th March, 2001 and the judgment in the case of P. Ramchandra Rao supra was delivered by the Supreme Court 16th April, 2002 i.e. to say the date on which the Supreme Court delivered the said Judgment in the case of P. Ramchandra Rao the impugned order had not attended finality. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that as a result of the aforesaid developments, the impugned Order dated 1st December, 2000 in each case is required to be set aside and the cases are required to be restored to the file of the learned trial Judge for decisions on merits.