IMPORTANT POINT
Cognizance of offence u/s 48(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, cannot be taken by the Labour Court unless a complaint disclosing facts constituting the offence is filed by the person affected thereby or a recognised union.

JUDGMENT

M.K. Mukherjee, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated April 26, 1996 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in W.P. (Crl.) No. 167 of 1995 whereby it rejected the writ petition filed by the two appellants before us. Facts leading to this appeal and relevant for its disposal are as under.

3. At all material times the appellant No.1, who is an Officer of the Indian Administrative Service, was holding the post of the Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ( Corporation for short) on deputation and appellant No. 2 was the Manager of its Nagpur region. On or about April 1, 1992 two recognised Workers Unions of the Corporation gave a joint notice terminating their earlier settlement with the Corporation and submitted their fresh charter of demands. On the failure of the management of the Corporation to attend to their demands the Unions served a notice upon the former intimating that the workers would go on strike from the midnight of April 12/13, 1993. A similar notice was also given by The Maharashtra S.T. Chalak Wahak Sanghatna, the respondent No. 2 herein, (hereinafter referred to as the Union ). In view of the threatened strike the Chief Minister of Maharashtra intervened into the matter; and on April 9, 1993 declared an interim relief of Rs. 25 crores to the workers and asked the Corporation to work out the modalities of its payment. Accordingly, the Corporation held discussions with the recognised Unions and decided upon the mode of payment of the interim relief, pending final settlement. After obtaining approval of the State Government to the same the Corporation issued a circular on June 25, 1993 and started making payments in terms thereof.

4. Assailing the above circular on the ground that payment in terms thereof would be unjust and more favourable to the workers affiliated to the other Unions, the Union filed a complaint before the Industrial Court, Amaravati Under Section 28(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ( Act for short) and, along with it, filed a petition seeking temporary relief. On that complaint, which was registered as ULP Case No. 397/93 and the petition, the Industrial Court passed the following order on June 29, 1993 :

"In view of the facts pleaded in the main complaint and this petition the effect of the operation of the impugned circular No. 3679 dated June 25, 1993 is hereby stayed until July 15, 1993.

Issue notice to the respondents to file their reply accordingly by the said date."

Thereafter, on July 22, 1993, the Union, through its General Secretary Shri N.M. Verma, filed a complaint before the Labour Court, Akola under Section 48(1) of the Act alleging that even after service of the above stay order on the day it was made, that is, on June 29, 1993, the Secretary of the State Transport Authority, and the two appellants had made payments in terms of the circular and sought the following reliefs :

"The Hon ble Labour Court may please declare that the accused 1, 2 & 3 have wilfully disobeyed the order of the Hon ble Industrial Court interim order dated 29.6.1993 in the U.L.P. case No. 397/93.

2. The Hon ble Court may please order against the accused No. 1, 2 & 3 to issue process u/s 48(1) of MRTU and PULP Act and award punishment under the Act.

3. Any suitable order which the Court may deem fit be passed in the interest of justice."

5. On receipt of the complaint, the Labour Court issued a notice directing the three accused, including the two appellants, to show cause why processes should not be issued against them. In showing cause the appellants did not give any specific reply to the allegations made against them in the complaint but raised a preliminary objection as to its maintainability on the ground that without a sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. they could not be prosecuted. The other accused however contended that he was wrongly arr