STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. AJIT MANEKLAL CHOKSEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State seeks to challenge the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Bombay, on 16th July, 1977 dismissing the complaint preferred by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Bombay, under S. 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This is a prosecution of a type which is not usually found. The learned Magistrate, however, is seen to be fully acquainted with the provisions of law and has passed an order dismissing the complaint as barred by limitation. Naturally the dates involved must now be narrated.

(2.) One Mansukhlal was working with the respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") and his services were terminated some time prior to 1973. An industrial dispute involving his dismissal and demanding is reinstatement was referred at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour to the Labour Court. That reference was heard as (IDA) No. 69D of 1973 and by an award dated 26th November, 1974, the Labour Court at Bombay directed the accused to reinstate the workmen with continuity of service and to pay back wages at the rate of Rs. 100 per month for the period from 5th April, 1973 till the end of November, 1974. This award was published on or about 17th December, 1974. Somewhere it is also mentioned that it was published on 2nd January, 1975. Since the question of limitation is involved, I would give benefit to the prosecution and hold that the award was published on 2nd January, 1975. Thereafter some correspondence is said to have taken place between the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and the accused on the question of reinstatement of Mansukhlal. Subsequently on 26th June, 1976 a complaint was filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Bombay, charging the accused with an offence punishable under S. 29 of the industrial Disputes Act. This complaint was heard as Court Case No. 106/S of 1976 by the learned Magistrate of the 19th Court, Bombay. As already mentioned above, considering the provisions both under the Industrial Disputes Act and under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the learned trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the complaint was barred by limitation and, therefore, he dismissed the same.

(3.) It is this order that is challenged by the State in the present petition which has been supported before me by the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Solkar and before I proceed to examine the contentions raised on behalf of the State, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of law. Whenever an adjudication authority under the Industrial Disputes Act decides in industrial dispute, it makes an award which is required to be in writing and is required to be signed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be. An award thus made is required to be published, under S. 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, within period of 30 days from the date of its receipt by the appropriate Government. Sub-section (2) of S. 17 lays down that subject to the provisions of S. 17A, the award published shall be final and shall not be called in question by any Court in any manner whatsoever. The provisions of S. 17A mention that the award shall become enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication under S. 17 subject to certain provisos in that section with which we are not immediately concerned. In the instant case, therefore, if the award is held to have been published on 2nd January, 1975, it became enforceable on 1st February, 1975.