R.R. VEDERAH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge has been made to the order of taking cognizance under Sections 25-R (2) read with Section 25-O(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called "the Act") and issuance of process against the petitioner.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was the Director of M/s. Ballarpur Industries Limited (hereinafter called 'BILT'). State of Orissa in Labour Department made complaint that on 18.12.2002 the establishment of the petitioner sent notice to the State Government seeking permission to close its undertaking in terms of Section 25-O of the Act read with Orissa Industrial Disputes Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called "the Rules"). Since within sixty days of receipt of the said notice by the State Government, no permission was received, the establishment of the petitioner issued notification to close the same with effect from 31.3.2003. But the State Government alleged that before the period of sixty days is over, the establishment of the petitioner issued notice of closure of the institution for which petitioner being the Director of the organization is liable under Section 25-R (2) of the Act. So, the complaint was filed. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process.

(3.) Mr. J. Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the State Government in Labour Department has followed the provisions of law properly. According to him, the application for closure was made on 23.12.2002 and sixty days have been lapsed in the mid night of 19/20.2.2003, but the State Government already refused to accord permission on 18.2.2003, which was received by 19/20.2.2003 for which under deeming provision of Section 25-O (1) and (3) of the Act the organization of the petitioner issued notice of closure. On the other hand, he submitted that since within sixty days from the date of making application no permission of closure is received, the organization of the petitioner issued the notice of closure. So, the petitioner is liable for any breach of provision of law and as such the complaint is maintainable.