DANYANDO SAMBHIJI WARHADE Vs. SHANKARAPPA UMMAPPA BANAGIRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for revision by two persons who are undergoing trial in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Buldana, for having committed an offence under S. 47 of the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947. The first applicant is the Managing Director of a private limited company known as the Deccan Motor Service Private Limited, Chikhali, and the second applicant was at all material times the Secretary of he Company. In consequence of certain labour disputes arising in the Company, an agreement was reached on 3-12-1957 between the Labour Officer appointed under the said Act and the two applicant as representing the Company. It is to be noticed that under the definition inS. 2(24) of the Act, the Labour Officer was acting as a representative of the employees in that dispute. The settlement was in regard to an individual worker, the complainant Shankarappa Umappa Bhanagire who was a motor stand manager. In consequence of the retrenchment of the post, the complainant was claiming certain statutory amount payable to him as also his arrears of salary. The agreement which was reached was to the effect that a payment of Rs. 167/- was to be made by the Company as statutory retrenchment compensation and a further sum of Rs. 1,901/- as arrears of salary due to the complainant. According to the complainant this amount was not paid and therefore he prosecuted the applicants who are the principal officers of the Company for having committedoffences under S. 47 of the Act. The complainant's case was that the non-payment in accordance with the agreement reached amounted to an illegal change within the meaning of S. 51 read with S. 51 read with S. 47 of the Act.

(2.) At the inception of the trial, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the applicants that the criminal Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of that type for the reason that the question as to what constitutes an illegal change is a question which under the Act is exclusively relegated to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court, and unless that Court in the first instance decides what an illegal change is, the criminal Court cannot convict the applicants of an offence nder S. 47 of the Act.

(3.) Now, "illegal change" is nowhere in terms defined in the Act. Though S. 51 refers to "illegal change" there is no definition attempted there. What is defined in the Act is a change and the definition is contained in sub-section (6) of S. 2 as follows: "'change means a change in any industrial matter." "Industrial matter" is defined in sub-section (13) of S. 2 as follows: