ADARSH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I Scope: The above writ petition and a batch of 70 other cases involve a common question, namely, the validity of the notices issued by the Government of Haryana through the Secretary to Government, Labour Department to two named individuals purporting to represent the Management as liable for prosecution under Section 25-U for violation of Section 25-T of the I.D. Act. The prosecution notices which are impugned in the writ petitions germinated from individual complaints of about 70 workmen against the Management when they were served with orders of transfer from the place where, the factory was situate, namely, at Gharaunda District Karnal to Phusgarh Road where, according to the workmen, no unit of factory had been as yet established, mala fides of the action, according to the workmen were seen from the fact that they were deliberately transferred after their plea to the government to close down some units was turned down, to a place where there was not even a manufacturing unit and the orders issued by the Management to constituted 'unfair labour practice'.

(2.) The Government had issued show cause notices to one Adesh Gupta, who was shown as "occupier" of the factory in relation to certain manufacturing units of the factory. Another person was Adarsh Gupta who had not been issued with any notice at all but the impugned orders had been issued against the above named two individuals as 'occupiers' of the manufacturing units. The Government received objections only from Adesh Gupta but still proceeded to issue the impugned orders. The impugned orders could be seen as stereo typed in that they say that in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 32 and 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')., the Governor of Haryana authorized the Labour Commissioner to lodge a complaint against the two named private individuals referred to above under Section 25-T read with Section 25-U of the Act in the Court of the Magistrate 1st class, Karnal. II Grounds of Challenge:

(3.) The notices are challenged in this batch of 70 writ petitions on common grounds viz. (i) The Government did not have any power to determine whether the particular act complained of constituted 'unfair labour practice'. Without adjudication and finding by the Labour Court that the action complained of by the workmen against the Management constitute unfair labour practice, the Government itself cannot arrive at such a conclusion and launch a proceeding; (ii) Adarsh Gupta who (is petitioner in several petitions had no doubt been served with show cause notices but the action taken by the Government deciding to launch a prosecution without considering the objections given by him that he was not an "occupier" of the Units from where some workmen had been transferred and without considering his objection that he had not transferred any workmen at all, was the result of a complete non-application of mind of the Government and hence vitiated, (iii) As regards Adarsh Gupta though he was a Director of the Company, no notice at all had been issued to him personally and the order without any proper notice constituted violation of principles of natural justice and hence not justified, (iv) The attempt to prosecute was an extraordinary power which could not be exercised in a cavalier fashion for alleged wrongs committed by the Company without ascertaining the actual personnel who was responsible for the decision made on behalf of the Company. Ill Text of impugned order(s) The impugned order reads as thus: