SHAMBHU PRASAD SINGH and NAGENDRA PRASAD SINGH JJ.

1. This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing an order, dated the 30th March, 1972, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 2), Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), rejecting an application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), for lodging a complaint under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents.

2. It appears that the Central Government, by its order, dated the 19th July, 1967, had referred to the Tribunal a dispute existing between the employers in relation to the National Ccal Development Corporation Limited, Ranchi. and their workmen, which was numbered as Reference No. 244 of 1967. During the pendency of the said reference, several complaints under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were filed, alleging contravention of certain provisions of the Act. The workmen were represented by the National Coal Corporation Employees Association. Respondents 1 and 2 are Assistant General Secretary and General Secretary, respectively, of the said Association. During the course of the hearing of the complaints, several witnesses were examined and documents were proved. Respondents 1 and 2 produced and proved two documents. Exts. W-7 and W-21. On behalf of the petitioner, an objection was taken that those documents were forged and fabricated for the purpose of being used in the proceedings. An application was filed before the Tribunal that, as the respondents had used forged documents and given false evidence during the course of the hearing of the proceedings, they had committed an offence punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, and, as such, a complaint in writing should be made by the Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of Section 195 (1) (b) of the Code. The Tribunal heard the parties on the question of filing of the complaint and, by the impugned order, it rejected the said application, holding that the Tribunal is not a Court within the meaning of Section 195 (1) (b) and, as such, there was no question of filing a complaint in accordance with the provisions of that section.

3. The petitioner initially filed a criminal revision before this Court, which was numbered as Criminal Revision No. 1179 of 1972, which was admitted by this Court and later converted in to this application under Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a proceeding before the Tribunal constituted under the Act is a judicial proceeding and it adjudicates on civil rights of the parties, and, as such, it will be deemed to be a Court within the meaning of Section 195 (1) (b) of the Code. Section 195 (1) (b) prescribes a bar on the power of the Criminal Court of taking cognizance of an offence punishable under the sections mentioned in the said sub-section including an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any Court, unless a complaint in writing is filed by such Court or some other Court to which such Court is subordinate.

5. Sub-section (2) of Section 195 reads as follows:

"(2) In clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1), the term Court includes a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, but does not include a Registrar or Sub-Registrar under the Indian Registration Act, 1877. This sub-section speaks in specific terms about Civil Revenue or Criminal Court and excludes directly only the Registrar or a Sub-Registrar. There is no mention about any Tribunal constituted under the Act, or authorities performing judicial functions under different enactments which conform to the requirements of a Court. On several occasions question arose in relation to many such authorities as to whether, while performing judic