RAJ KUMAR SHARMA Vs. JAGDISH PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAGDISH Parshad son of Hardwari Lal, instituted complaint against Raj Kumar Sharma Prop. of M/s. Asha Industrial Corporation, 362, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana and Dharam Chand son of Shri Lachhman Dass, 236/4, Industrial Area-A, Vijay Nagar, Ludhiana, under Sections 464, 465, 467, 461, 471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code on the allegations, that he had been working as workman in the factory of Raj Kumar Sharma known as M/s Asha Industrial Corporation, 362, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana for the last many years. His services were terminated illegally, without any notice/chargesheet etc. He challenged the said order of termination of services in the Labour Court, Ludhiana. Shri Pawan Kumar Garg, the then Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana passed an award on 7th April, 1992 reinstating him into service with full back wages. The award was published in the Punjab Government gazette. It was directed by the Labour Court that he shall report for duty within 15 days for the enforcement of the award. When he went to join duty with Raj Kumar Sharma in his factory, he refused to permit him to join duty. He filed an application for the recovery of Rs. 33,207/- before the Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer, Circle I through Dalit Mazdoor Union, Sherpur Kalan, Ludhiana. So far Raj Kumar accused has not paid him anything. Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer, Circle I issued notice to Raj Kumar Sharma accused. Shri Bansal appeared on behalf of the accused and produced photostat copy of receipt dated 16.3.1993 showing the full and final settlement of his dues. On the said receipt Dharam Chand accused figures. It is further alleged that the complainant never received any amount from Raj Kumar Sharma and never signed any receipt in token of receipt of any amount. Raj Kumar Sharma accused never produced original of that receipt before Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer despite several requests made by the complainant. The said receipt is forged as the complainant always signs as Jagdish Parshad and not as Jagdish. The said receipt was forged with the intention to defeat his claim and cause him damage. Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer could not initiate action against the accused as he is not a court. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure only that forum which is a court where the forged receipt is used can institute the complaint. Accused No. 2 knew that accused No. 1 had never made any payment to the complainant and accused No. 4 is thus a party to the act of forging that receipt and using it before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer.

(2.) AFTER holding preliminary enquiry into the allegations of the complaint Shri S.K. Sachdeva, Judicial Magistrate I Class, Ludhiana vide order dated 11.7.1995 found that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against both the accused under Sections 464, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and as such the accused were ordered to be summoned for trial for these offences.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.