Mens rea is not an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 29 - BREACH OF AWARD - MENS REA - NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT - PENALTY IMPOSED - ABSOLUTE AND CATEGORICAL - SCHEME OF THE ACT - TO PRESERVE INDUSTRIAL PEACE - PUBLIC INTEREST.
Fact of the Case:

Caulfield Holland, Ltd., a joint stock company, and Mr. Holland, its Managing Director, were accused of committing a breach of an award that was binding on them under the Industrial Disputes Act. The prosecution contended that mens rea or a blameworthy condition of the mind is not an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 29, while the defense pleaded that the breach was inevitable due to their financial constraints.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that mens rea is not an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The scheme of the Act and the object in passing it indicate that the obligation to comply with the award is unqualified, absolute, and categorical, and its breach would invite the penalty under Section 29 without proof of mens rea.
Issues: Whether mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The scheme of the Act is to provide for the investigation and speedy settlement of industrial disputes between employers and employees. 2. The award of the Tribunal is binding on all parties to the industrial dispute. 3. The breach of an award is rendered penal even though mens rea may not be proved. 4. The nature and extent of the penalty imposed under Section 29 support the view that mens rea is not an essential constituent of the offence.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate was set aside, and the accused were convicted of the offence under Section 29. Both the accused were directed to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each.

Judgment - Gajendragadkar, J.

1. The short question which arises for decision in this appeal relates to the construction of Section 29, Industrial Disputes Act, (India Act 14 of 1947). This section provides that if any person commits a breach of any term of an award which is binding on him under the Act, he shall on his first conviction therefor be punishable with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. The prosecution case was that Caulfield Holland, Ltd., who are a joint stock company incorporated in England end who carry on business at Ballard Estate, Bombay, and Mr. Holland, the Managing Director of the said Company, had committed a breach of an award which was binding on them.

The two accused admitted that a breach had been committed, but they pleaded that the breach was inevitable because it was absolutely beyond their financial resources to comply with the provisions of the award. Therefore their plea was that unless the breach committed by them was wilful or was actuated by mens rea, they would not be liable for the penalty imposed by Section 29. On the other hand, the prosecution contended that the presence of mens rea or a blameworthy condition of the mind is not an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 29. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate has upheld the plea raised by the defence and has acquitted the accused of the offence charged. This order of acquittal is challenged by the State of Bombay and the only question which we have to consider is whether mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 29.

2. The material facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this case are very few. It appears that a concern called Holland Co. which was owned by Mr. L. Holland (accused 2) had been carrying on business for a number of years in Bombay. The business of this concern consisted of doing outside jobs of electrical wiring and the like, as well as making repairs to electrical appliances in a small workshop which the concern owned. The firm was originally established in 1903, and carded on its business until it became a joint stock company in 1947. Caulfield Holland, Ltd., took over the original firm along with its entire assets, business and goodwill. This joint stock company had a share capital of £52,000 divided into £1 shares. 37,000 shares out of these were subscribed, of which 36,000 were assigned to accused 2 in consideration of his having sold his business its assets to the joint stock company.

3. In 1949 a dispute arose between the employees of the joint, stock company and the company and this dispute was in respect of pay, bonus for 1946-47 and other allied matters. The Government of Bombay referred this dispute to the adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal made its award on 30-11-1950, by which substantially the demands of the workmen were upheld. This award was published in the Bombay Government Gazette on 4-1-1951. The award directed that the amounts becoming payable thereunder shall be paid within two months from the date on which the award became enforceable. The Company went in appeal under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. (Act 48 of 1950). The Appellate Tribunal gave their decision on 5-6-1951. The appellate decision was published on 28-6-1951.

After the decision of the Appellate Tribunal the employees called upon the Company to comply with the award. This demand was followed by negotiations between the parties, but the negotiations failed the Company unequivocally refused to comply with the demands made by the workers under the award on 4-11-1951. On 5-11-1951, a complaint was filed against the two accused for the breach of the award committed by them.

4. At the hearing of this appeal the learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that the Chief Presidency

Click Here to Read the rest of this document