JUDGEMENT - B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.:---This writ petition raises an interesting question of law as to whether a person who was a minor on the date when an alleged offence under section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was committed, can be tried by the Labour Court under the provisions of the Act.

2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges an order dated 28th September, 1993 made by the Presiding Officer, 2nd Labour Court, Thane, who dismissed her application for deleting her name from the proceedings before it.

3. The petitioner is the daughter of 3rd respondent and was born on 12th September, 1974. At the material time, she was still a minor studying in the high school. Though she was a minor, she and her father were proprietors of a powerloom business in Bhiwandi. The 1st respondent filed complaint (ULP) No. 163 of 1992 before the Industrial Court at Thane, in which the Industrial Court made an interim order dated 20th March, 1992 to the following effect:---

"The respondents are hereby directed to deposit in the Court within three weeks from the date hereof, a sum equivalent to 50% of the wages of the concerned employees from 1st October 1989 till date of this order."

The petitioner and her father, Ramchandra Jain (3rd respondent) were both respondents to the said complaint. On 7th August, 1992, the 1st respondent filed Misc. Complaint (ULP) No. 132 of 1992 before the 2nd Labour Court, Thane, alleging, inter alia, therein that the 3rd respondent and the petitioner had deliberately refused to comply with the binding interim order of the Industrial Court dated 20th March, 1992 made in Complaint (ULP) No. 183 of 1992 and thereby had committed an offence punishable under section 48(1) of the Act. The 1st respondent prayed that the Labour Court should take cognizance of the offence, issue process against the 2nd and 3rd respondents and punish them in accordance with law. The 2nd Labour Court, Thane, took cognizance of the offence alleged in the said Misc. Complaint (ULP) No. 132 of 1992 and on 18th August, 1992 issued a notice to the 3rd respondent and the petitioner which was made returnable on 7th September, 1992. Both the petitioner and her father (3rd respondent) appeared before the Labour Court on the due date. The petitioner applied to the Labour Court to dismiss the complaint against her inasmuch as she was less than 18 years of age on 7th August, 1992 on which date the complaint has been filed and taken cognizance of. The Labour Court accepted the fact that, as on the date of the filing and cognisance of the complaint, the petitioner had not completed 18 years. However, relying on section 27 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, it took the view that, inasmuch as the petitioner was admittedly more than 16 years of age, she could be tried before the regular Criminal Court and also the Labour Court exercising criminal jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, the Labour Court dismissed the application made by the petitioner. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Despite notice of this writ petition having been duly served on the respondents, none of the respondents has appeared before the Court.

5. Shri S.S. Pakale, learned advocate for the petitioner, pointed out that under section 40 of the Act, the Labour Court has been invested with all powers under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, of a Presidency Magistrate in Greater Bombay and a Magistrate, first Class, elsewhere and is required to follow the procedure laid down in Chapter 22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the trial of an offence under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, as if the trial was a summary trial in which an appeal lies. He also pointed out that section 40 provides in terms that the rest of the provisions o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document