PREM CHAND JAIN, C. J.

( 1 ) THE question of law that needs our decision, reads thus :-

"whether a complaint lodged by a private individual securing permission from the Government or the Labour Commissioner as the case may be could be regarded as a complaint made under section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Government or the Labour Commissioner or under its or his authority ?"

( 2 ) S. N. Hada and others have filed these petitions for the quashing of the order No. IAA/cr-217/81-82, dated 11th May 1982 passed by the Labour Commissioner - third respondent (Annexure-J) as being illegal and void. The Commissioner of Labour by virtue of his order, which has been impugned in these petitions, has granted permission to the Binny Mills staff Association to prosecute the management of M/s. Binny Limited (The Bangalore Woolen, cotton and Silk Mills Co. , Ltd.), Bangalore, for violation of some of the terms of agreement dated 8th of December 1980 (Annexure-G ). When the petitions came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court, a contention was raised on behalf of the petitioners that no permission could be granted to a private individual or trade union to lodge a complaint under section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). In other words the contention sought to be raised before the Learned Single Judge was that Section 34, which reads as under :

"34. COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCES : (1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or of the abatement of any such offence, save on complaint made by or under the authority of the appropriate government.

(2) No Court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act". authorised prosecution by the State and not by a private indidvidual.

( 3 ) ON the other hand the learned Counsel for the State had submitted that a complaint could be lodged by a private person with the previous permission of the Government or the authority named as the case may be. In support of his contention reliance had been placed on a single bench Judgment of this Court in K. Pundarika Aithal v. Allampolli Venkataram 1974 (1) KLJ 85.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing the Counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge found considerable force in the construction suggested by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on the language of Section 34 (1) of the Act. As there was likelihood of taking a view different from the one expressed in pundarika Aithal's case (supra) the learned single Judge thought it appropriate to refer the matter to a Division Bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act.

( 5 ) THE matter was heard by a Division Bench. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the Bench found that there was an unreported decision of a Division Bench in Criminal Appeal no. 528/1973 decided on 22nd July 1974 M. S. Rama Rao v. Jayashankar which has taken the same view as in Pundarika Aithal's case (supra) and as the point in issue, though had been decided by the Bench, needed reconsideration, the aforesaid question was referred to be decided by a Full Bench.

( 6 ) MR. R. N. Narasimha Murthy, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, raised a contention before us that the expression in Section 34 (1) of the Act "by or under the authority" means that the government or the authority (in case of delegation of power), as the case may be itself can lodge a complaint or it could authorise any other officer of the State government to lodge a complaint. What was sought to be argued by the learned Counsel was that the prosecution has to be by the State and not by a private individual with the permission of the Government or the Labour Commissioner, that if a private individual lodges a complaint with the permission of the Government or the Labour Commissioner, the latter would have no control or authority over the complainant, and that the perso

Click Here to Read the rest of this document