ARBIND KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 15.7.2002 passed by CJM, Dhanbad in connection with ID Case No 240 of 2002 whereby and whereunder he took cognizance of the offence under Sections 29/32 of the I.D. Act.

(2.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 is the Chairman of M/s. SAIL whereas petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the Executive Director of IISCO sitting at the Headquarter of IISCO at Burdwan. It is submitted that petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have no knowledge regarding the tripartite settlement arrived between the parties and therefore they are not liable to be punished taking recourse of Section 32 of the I.D. Act.

(3.) HAVING heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. Admittedly there is a tripartite settlement arrived in between the management of IISCO and the representative of employee on 6.9.2001. It further appears that the management is required to implement the said settlement by 30.11.2001. It further appears that when the settlement has not been implemented by 30.11.2001, workmen filed an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad for taking action against the management of IISCO. It then appear that thereafter show - cause notice issued to the management and in reply to the said show -cause notice it has been brought to the notice of the Regional Labour Commissioner that company has been referred to BIFR in the year 1994 itself, therefore, it is not possible to implement the tripartite settlement. It then appears that RLC found that the reply given by the petitioners is not satisfactory, therefore, he filed present complaint petition. On the basis of that the impugned order has been passed.