The directors of a company are responsible for the company's failure to implement an award made by an industrial tribunal, even if they joined the company after the award was made.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Government of West Bengal on behalf of the State of West Bengal and is directed against an order of acquittal passed on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore, by which he acquitted the respondents who had been convicted under Section 29 read with Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by a Magistrate, 1st class, Sealdah.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case was that there was an award made by the 2nd Industrial Tribunal. West Bengal on the 29th December, 1953 published in Calcutta Gazette on the 28th January, 1954. The respondent Company, i. e. , United Rubber Works Ltd. , was directed by this award to pay bonus at a certain rate for the years 1951 and 1952 and the payment of certain monthly emoluments to certain workers of the respondent Company. It was alleged that in spite of the existing award the respondents who were all Directors of the Company or concerned with the management of the Company had committed an offence by not implementing the Award.

( 3 ) THE defence of the respondents at the trial was that the Award had been fully implemented. The special defence of the respondents Sm. Momtaz, Md. Omar and Md. Basir was that they having joined the Company as Directors long after the date when the Award was made, were not in any way responsible for carrying out the terms of the Award. It may be stated here that notice of this appeal could not be served on respondent No. 6 Sm. Momtaz and so it was decided that so far as she is concerned the appeal preferred by the Government against her acquittal should remain pending till the notice had been served on her. As such we are not concerned in the present appeal with the case of Sm. Momtaz. Respondent S. K. Chatterjee pleaded that he was merely chief accountant of the Company and not being concerned with the management of the company, he was not responsible for any acts of omission for which the Directors and persons concerned with the management were responsible.

( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate who tried the case found on evidence that the terms of the Award had not been, implemented. We have gone through the evidence adduced in this case and it appears that from the evidence that was the only inevitable conclusion that could be drawn. The learned Magistrate further found that there was not even an attempt made by the respondent Directors to show that the offence had been committed without their knowledge or consent. Accordingly the learned Magistrate held that the respondent Directors had not discharged the onus that lay upon them. So far as respondent S. K. Chatterjee is concerned the learned Magistrate found that Chatterjee has been concerned with the management of the Company and as such he was also responsible for the non-implementation of the Award.

( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate having convicted the respondents an appeal was taken by the respondents to the Sessions Judge, Alipore which was later on heard by Sri R. N. Dutt, Additional Sessions Judge with the result that the respondents were acquitted.

( 6 ) THE main grounds on which the orders of conviction and sentence were set aside were that three of the respondents, namely, Sm. Momtaz, Md. Omar and Md. Basir having joined as directors long after the date for the implementation of the Award were not responsible for its implementation because the prosecution did not prove that they had joined the Company with the Knowledge of the, existence of the Award.

( 7 ) ANOTHER point that weighed with the appellate court in passing the order that he passed was that in view of a previous complaint made against the respondents alleging the same offence which had to be withdrawn, the order passed in that case amounted to an order of acquittal under Section 248 Cr. P. C. and hence this prosecution of two of the respondents, namely, M. A. Saigal and S. K. Chat-terjee, who were accused in the previous case was barred under Section 403