A.K.GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have challenged the order dated 11.1.1999 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in I.D. Case No. 6 of 1999, whereby cognizance for the offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947w as taken against them.

(2.) CASE against the petitioners was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant/opposite party No. 2 namely, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Dhanbad on 11.1.1999 alleging inter alia that the petitioners who constitute the part of the management of the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (B.C.C.L.) have failed to implement the award dated 27.8.1997 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in Reference Case No. 45 of 1993 and, therefore, liable to be punished for the offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is bad both on the points of facts as well as on the point law and has been passed without application of judicial mind. Learned counsel explains that the learned Court below has failed to consider the fact that the present petitioners who have been cited as accused, cannot be thrust with vicarious liability by virtue of their office as Director (Personnel). General Manager (Personnel), General Manager, West Jharia Area, Moondih and Company Secretary respectively of the B.C.C.L. as they could not be held directly responsible for the implementation of the award. Learned counsel explains that the industrial dispute under reference in the award, was concerned with a particular colliery namely, Moonidih Colliery where Agent/ Project Office/Manager is already appointed and is vested with the authority of appointment and dismissal of the workmen of the colliery and by virtue of his office, he has been vested with the authority to manage the colliery, to own responsibility for the management of the Colliery. It is the responsibility of the Agent/Project Manager of the concerned Colliery to implement the award. Learned counsel further submits that even otherwise, cognizance is thoroughly bad in law on account of the fact that the order was passed beyond the period of one year from the date of the alleged offence, although, considering the period of maximum punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, cognizance ought to have been taken within a period of one year from the date of the alleged offence. Learned counsel explains that the award is dated 27.8.1997 which was notified on 5.9.1997 and was implementable immediately after lapse of one month from the date of its notification and computed from the aforesaid date, cognizance ought to have been taken within the month of October 1998, whereas the instant complaint case was filed on 11.1.1999 and on the same day, the impugned order of cognizance was passed by the learned Court below without extending the period of limitation. It is further submitted that the award for non -implementation of which the instant complaint was filed, - has itself been set aside by the order of this Court dated 20.4.2004 passed in CWJC No. 290 of 1998(R) and, therefore, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners for non - implementation of the award which is non -existing, is totally illegal.