BHAGWANTLAL GAYAPRASADJI SHARMA Vs. A W KANMADIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point involved in this Miscellaneous Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether or not the Industrial court had power to review a criminal matter.

(2.) THE petitioner's dismissal by the respondent Mills was sponsored of a labour dispute by the Labour Union. The dispute, it seems, ended in favour of the respondents. Thereafter, the Union proceeded to file a complaint against the respondent Mills under section 17 of the Madhya Pradesh industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961. On 15-1-1972, the complainant did not appear and at about 3. 20, the Labour Court passed the impugned order dismissing the complaint. The petitioner, thereafter filed an application for restoration of the case. This application was also dismissed. Thereafter, the matter was moved before the State Industrial Court, in revision. The State Industrial Court was of the view that it had no power to entertain a revision against the impugned order. It was also pointed out that an appeal against the order lay under section 65 (1) (b) of the M. P. Industrial relations Act. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has moved this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) IT is not disputed before us that it was a summons case and order dismissing the complaint for default would result in the acquittal of the respondent. This Court has consistently taken the view that once the matter is dismissed by the Criminal Court, it has no power to either review the matter or restore the matter in cases where the complainant has failed to appear. We may refer to Pooran v. Ganga, (1962 J L J Note 216.), State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shobharam and another, (1975 J L 1 Note 5.) and Union of India v. Manikchand, (AIR 1957 M P 215.), We wholly agree with the view taken in the above cases that the Criminal Court has no power after it has delivered the judgment of acquittal, to restore the matter to file with a view to rehear it. We also note that this case pertains to cause occurring in the year 1964. The case is sufficiently old and on that score also, we would not exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to give relief to the petitioner.