SUBRATO ROY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the aforesaid cases are being disposed of by this common order as they arise out of non-implementation of the Award dated May 15, 1986 published on July 30, 1986 by the employer-petitioner.

(2.) PETITIONERS have filed this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. assailing the order dated July 16, 1988 whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the petitioners on a complaint filed by non-petitioner No. 2 in each case. The basis of the complaint filed was that the services of the non-petitioner No. 2 were illegally terminated by the petitioners and they raised an Industrial Dispute. The matter was referred to the Labour Court and an award was passed in favour of the workman on May 15, 1986. This award came to be published on July 30, 1986 and as such it became enforceable under Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1947') with effect from August 30, 1986. Despite the fact that the award became enforceable, the petitioners though duty bound yet failed to comply with the directions contained in the award and as such the complainant non-petitioner No. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioners for offence under Section 29 of the Act, 1947. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued process against which the petitioner has approached this Court by way of a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. on the ground that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation and as such the Court could not take cognizance.

(3.) MR. Dhanker, appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all the cases, submitted that offence under Section 29 of the Act, 1947. is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both and no Court can take cognizance of an offence after a period of expiry of one year under Section 468 (2) (b), Cr. P. C. if the said offence is punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. It is submitted that since provisions of Section 468 (2) (b), Cr. P. C. are also applicable to offences under Section 29 of the Act 1947, the Court could not proceed on a complaint which has been filed after a period of 21 months. It is further submitted that the complaint has been prefered in violation to the provisions of Section 34 of the Act,1947.