BHARAMARBAR DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in Criminal Appeal No. 1/75 of 2000/1995 setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Puri 2 (C) CC No. 14 of 1994 against the present opp. party No. 2 under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')

(2.) THE fact leading to the present revision is that the Petitioner was serving as an employee in M/s. Nilachal Service Station, Grand Road, Puri of which opp. party No. 2 is the owner and employer. Opp. party No. 2 terminated the services of the Petitioner whereupon the Petitioner raised industrial dispute under the provisions of the Act. The dispute was conciliated by the Labour Officer, but was subsequently referred to the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar by the Government for adjudication as to whether the termination of the Petitioner was legal and just. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar registered I.O. Case No. 16 of 1985 and disposed of the same on 19.8.1985 answering the reference in favour of the Petitioner by passing an award indicating that his termination from service by opp. party No. 2 is not legal and that the Petitioner should be reinstated in service with full back wages. This award of the learned Labour Court was notified by the Govt. of Orissa on dt. 26.8.1985. The award was also communicated to the Petitioner as well as opp. party No. 2. The Petitioner reported to his duty, but opp. party No. 2 did not accept his joining report and did not allow him to continue in service. The Petitioner approached the Labour Commissioner, Orissa and the District Labour officer, Puri who, after making proper enquiry directed opp. party No. 2 to implement the award. Since opp. party No. 2 did not implement the award in spite of such direction, prosecution was launched against him under Section 29 of the Act. Learned J.M.F.C., Puri after hearing the matter passed judgment on dt. 29.7.1995 holding opp. party No. 2 guilty under Section 29 of the Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - in default S.I. for one month. It was also ordered that opp. party No. 2 would pay a fine of Rs. 50/ - per day from the date of pronouncement of the judgment in I.O. Case No. 16/85. Opp. Party No. 2 preferred appeal against that judgment before the learned Sessions Judge, Puri, vide Criminal Appeal No. 1/1975 of 2000/1995. The appeal was transferred to the Court of Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri, who, after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Puri. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri the Petitioner has preferred the present revision.

(3.) MR . Satyabarata Mohanty, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opp. party No. 2, on the other hand, submits that Section 17 of the Act clearly contemplates that the award has to be published by the State Government and when publication has to be made by the State Government, it has to be made in official Gazette and not other wise. According to him, non -publication of the award in official gazette would be fatal to a prosecution under Section 29 of the Act.