RAM SARUP Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants Ram Sarup and Ram Shiroman were convicted by a Magistrate, First Class, Hardoi, under Section 14, U.P. Industrial Disputes (Second) Ordinance, No. 13 of 1947, and sentenced each to rigorous imprisonment for one year. They went up in appeal to the learned Sessions Judge who maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for three months each.

(2.) The prosecution case briefly was that there was a certain dispute between the Lakshmi Sugar Mills, Hardoi, and its employees. This was referred to the Conciliation Officer of the U.P. Government for adjudication, and the adjudicator gave his award on 27 November 1917. This award was enforced by an order of the Government, dated 18 January 1948, whereby the decisions contained in the award were made binding on the company as well as on its employees and it was directed that no employee shall go on strike for two months from the date of the order. A copy of the order was duly served on Tabarak Khan, President of the Workers Union of the Mill, on 19 January 1948. Contrary to the Government orders there was a strike by the workers commencing at 3-30 A.M. on 29th January 1948. It ended at 8 p.m. on 30 January 1948. The prosecution case was that among the strikers were also Ram Shiroman and Ram Sarup, the present applicants. Ram Sarup stated that he was called by one of the Directors of the Mills very early in the morning and asked to do some work which it was not his duty to do, that when he refused a false report was made against him for participating in the strike. Ram Shiroman stated that he was off duty when the strike began, that he was to resume duty at 6 P.M. on 29 January 1948, but failed to do so as he had stomach ache. The prosecution case further was that these two persons and one Tabarak Khan had gone about asking the employees not to work and to continue the strike. This part of the prosecution case has not been believed by the trial Court and the two applicants were acquitted of that charge.

(3.) In this application it has been contended that there is no evidence to show that Ram Shiroman applicant went on strike, that the prosecution evidence merely showed that he was absent from duty and mete absence from duty is no offence under the U.P. Industrial Disputes (Second) Ordinance, 1947. It was also urged that the Ordinance having been withdrawn on 1 February 1948, and proceedings against the applicants having been taken on a subsequent date in February 1948, the applicants could not be tried for an offence which was punishable under an Ordinance which had ceased to have effect at the date the proceedings were commenced. It was contended that the sentence passed in any case is too severe .