ORDER :

1. The revision petitioner-accused is before this Court being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.04.2014 passed in C.C. No. 35948/2011 by the learned VII Additional CMM, Bengaluru (for short ‘the trial Court’) for the offence punishable under Section 29 of the Industrial Dispute Act (for short ‘I.D. Act’) and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default to pay fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days, which was confirmed by the judgment dated 05.03.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 470/2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-X at Bengaluru (for short ‘the Appellate Court’) in dismissing the appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case as per complaint are that, the complainant Sri. R. Devadasan, joined the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Institute’) on 24.01.1978 as a Mechanic and was having unblemished service records, but the Institute refused the employment with effect from 03.05.1993. The workman approached the Labour Court on 10.06.1993 seeking his re-instatement to his original position and for backwages. The Labour Court allowed the claim vide award dated 01.02.2001 directing the Institute to re-instate the workman into service with 50% of backwages from the date of refusal to work i.e. 03.05.1993 till the date of his re-instatement with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. The Institute challenged the order of the Labour Court by filing Writ Petition No. 38773/2001, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The Management of the Institute preferred Writ Appeal No. 634/2007 before the learned Division Bench, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 13.06.2008. Even after dismissal of the writ appeal, the Management of the Institute never bothered to comply with the direction issued by the Labour Court. Therefore, the complainant approached the Labour Commissioner seeking sanction to prosecute the Institute represented by its Registrar/Director. The Labour Commissioner after hearing both the parties passed the order on 17.07.2009 permitting the complainant to prosecute the Institute. Accordingly, the complainant initiated proceedings under Section 29 of the I.D. Act before the trial Court.

3. The trial Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused to answer the plea. The accused being the Registrar of the Institute pleaded not guilty for the charges leveled against him. The complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 in support of his contention. The accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and got examined himself as DW-1 and got marked Exs.D.1 to D.18 in support of his defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record proceeded to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 29 of the I.D. Act, after forming an opinion that the complainant is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the above said offence.

4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused preferred appeal before the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 470/2014. The Appellate Court once again considering the material on record came to the conclusion that there are no merits in the appeal and the same was dismissed by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of appeal, the accused is before this Court seeking to set aside both the judgments in the interest of justice.

5. The respondent-complainant has appeared before this Court represented by his counsel.

6. Heard learned Senior counsel Sri. Uday Holla for Sri. Vivek Holla, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. A.J. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the respondent.

7. After ad