K.K. TEWARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Kaustav Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned A.P.P for the State as well as Mr. Binod Singh, learned S.C. (L&C) appearing for the respondent no. 2.

(2.) In this application petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with I.D. Case No. 107 of 2000 including the order dated 24th March, 2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby and where-under cognizance for an offence punishable under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been taken.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint case was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 in which it was alleged that the award dated 29.06.1995 in Reference Case No. 35 of 1987 was not implemented by the management and in such circumstances the accused persons named in the complaint petition were to be prosecuted in terms of Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint petition cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad on 24th March, 2000. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the award dated 29.06.1995 was terminated by the General Manager vide letter dated 20/27.02.1998 addressed to the Assistant Secretary, of the Union with a copy to the Regional Labour Commissioner as well as Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad. Learned counsel further submits that since the award itself was terminated on account of non-joining of the workman concerned Mahabir Bhuiyan on the date of filing his complaint petition there was virtually no award in existence for its implementation. In such circumstances, Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act could not have been made applicable against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners also refers to Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act and has also submitted that notwithstanding the expiry of the period mentioned in Sub-Section 3 of Section 19 the award shall continue to be binding upon the parties until a period of two months has lapsed from the date of notice given to the other party. It has been submitted that since the notice was given in the year 1998 and the complaint case having been filed on 24th March, 2000, there was no cause either for the opposite party no. 2 to file a complaint case and for that matter by the learned court below for taking cognizance vide order dated 24th March, 2000.