Back
ABHAY S. OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Yugal Sikri – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Leave granted.
FACTS
2. By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Cr. PC”). The petition was filed to quash a complaint filed in a criminal Court by the second respondent alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 29 read with Sections 32 and 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the ID Act”). Cognizance was taken of the alleged offence on the said complaint. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the High Court has dismissed the petition without considering the merits of the challenge to the complaint.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that Section 29 of the ID Act is attracted when there is a breach of any settlement or award binding on the accused under the provisions of the ID Act. He submitted that there is no averment in the complaint about the breach of any particular settlement or award. He further submitted that under Section 34(1) of the ID Act, cognizance of any offence punishable under the ID Act can be taken based only on a com
Setting criminal law in motion has serious consequences – It cannot be done casually by Magistrate.
Recognition of the limited jurisdiction for prosecuting parties under the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing enforceability of Labor Court awards against identified entities only.
The High Court's inherent power under Section 482 of CRPC cannot be denied without a statutory bar, and its refusal to entertain a petition must be justified.
The main legal point established is the requirement of obtaining authorization from the appropriate government for filing complaints under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 to avoid frivolous complain....
Misconduct can be established outside the workplace if it brings disrepute to the management, and the Labour Court's reduction of punishment was found to be perverse.
Section 29 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which stipulates penalty for breach of settlement of award.
Under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court cannot adjudicate claims without prior recognition of entitlement; it can only enforce existing rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
