VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Videocon International Ltd., Petitioner No. 1, a Company registered under the Companies Act and its Area Manager, D. Prasad-petitioner No. 2 have filed this application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 17-8-1994 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, whereby he took cognizance of offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and for quashing of the whole criminal proceedings resting thereon in Case No. 843 (M) 94 pending in the Court - of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna.

(2.) It appears that services of Dilip Kumar Dutta, Respondent No. 3 and two other employees of the Company, namely, Santosh Kumar Sinha and Vijay Kumar 'B' were terminated on the ground that their appointments were illegal. The three employees raised an Industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court vide award (An- nexure-3) dated 18-9-1993 held that termination of service of the aforesaid three workmen including Respondent No. 3 were for reasonable cause and on cogent grounds. However the termination of Dilip Kumar Dutta, Respondent No. 3 was ruled as invalid due to non- compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. This Respondent who was working as Peon and getting his salary Rs. 650A per month on the date of termination was ordered to be reinstated with full back wages, but he was not held entitled to any other consequential relief as his appointment was found to be illegal. Labour Superintendent filed criminal complaint dated 25-7-1994 (Annexure-1) in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate against the petitioners under Section 29 of the Act alleging therein that the petitioners failed to implement the award as contained in Annexure-3, although-it had become binding and as such they were liable to be punished for an offence under Section 29 of the Act.

(3.) Acting on the complaint, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 29 of the Act against the petitioners.