MAHADEB PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the judgment of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of bhadrak, convicting the petitioners under Section 31 (2) of the Industrial Disputes act for contravention of the provisions of Section 25-F (b) of that Act and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-each; in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.

(2.) THE case against the petitioners was started on the basis of a prosecution report submitted against them by the Assistant Labour Commissioner of Orissa (P. W. 1)to the effect that they being the employers of five workmen in Popsing Rice Mill, charampa retrenched them without giving them the retrenchment benefits provided in Section 25-F (b) of the Act. The complaint was actually filed by the assistant Labour Commissioner and it was based on a detailed enquiry made by the District Labour Officer namely N. Sahoo (P. W. 6 ). Some of the employees who were so retrenched without being given retrenchment benefits were also examined as witnesses (P. Ws. 3, 4 and 5) in support of the prosecution case. The petitioners (who were represented by a legal practitioner) in their examination under Section 342 " Cr. P. C. took the plea that these retrenched labourers did not put in a continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year and hence they were not entitled to any retrenchment benefits. No other defence plea was taken.

(3.) BUT during the hearing of this revision petition Mr. Kundu for the petitioners was permitted to raise some interesting questions of law arising out of the order of the lower Court.