MOHD SIDDIQ Vs. RAGHUNATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three criminal appeals from acquittal, which were filed by the complainant, Mohd. Siddiq, with the leave of this Court, are directed against three different orders, dated, July 13, 1972, passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Beawar, whereby the accused persons in 'he three complaints filed by Mohd Siddiq were acquitted by the learned Magistrate of the offence punishable under sec 29 read with sec. 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act ). The circumstances giving rise to these appeals may be stated as follows: -

(2.) DISPUTES arose between Bijai Cotton Mil's Limited, Bijainagur, and its workmen in respect of claims of the latter for retrenchment compensation and other dues payable under the Act. From time to time, the Government of Rajasthan referred two of these disputes to the Labour Court, Jaipur and one to the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur for adjudication. The Labour Court made two awards, on July 9, 1965, and October 13, 1965, respectively, directing the employer to pay to its workmen certain amounts by the dates specified in those awards. Similarly, the Industrial Tribunal made its award on September 1, 1966 requiring the Management to pay retrenchment compensation by a specified date to the group of workmen involved in the reference before it. The two awards made by the Labour Court were published the Government on Novemebr 25, 1965. the third award made by the Industrial Tribunal was published on January 3, 1967. As laid down in sec. 17-A of the Act, these awards became enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the respective dates of their publication. Thus, the employer was bound under all the three awards to pay to the workmen retrenchment compensation and other dues on or before the respective dates specified in these awards. The employer did not pay these amounts to the workmen by those dates and, thus, committed breach of the terms of all the three awards Mohd. Siddiq, Secretary, Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Bijainager (hereinafter called the complainant) thereupon, obtained the sanction of the Rajasthan Government to prosecute the directors, namely, Raghunath Singh Man Singhka, Sanwarmal Mansinghka, Radhey Shyam Mansinghka, and Ram Richhpal Mansinghka, of the employer company for the offence consisting of the breanch of the terms of these awards punishable under sec. 29 read with sec. 32 of the Act. On the authority of the sanction so obtained, the complainant filed three different complaints in the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Beawar. The learned Magistrate issued process in all the three complaints and summoned the four accused mentioned above to stand trial accordingly. The accused denied the accusations against them. The learned Magistrate recorded evidence in these complaints. On the conclusion of the evidence, he recorded the statements of all the four accused persons under sec. 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. In their answers to the questions put by the Court, each of the four accused admitted the commission of the offence. Acting on the evidence produced before him and the admissions made by the accused persons in their statements under sec- 342 Cr. P. C. , the learned Magistrate passed three separate orders of conviction and sentence in these complaints on July 30, 1969 The accused were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 50/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days, each, separately in all the three complaints.

(3.) MR. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that even an award for money imposes a continuing obligation to pay, for, it is contended, the obligation to pay, for, it is contended, the obligation to pay continues de die in diem and it does not end with one breach there of by the parties bound by it. The obligation to pay remains intact, so runs the argument, in spite of its successive breaches from day to day by the obligee.