The main legal point established is the requirement of obtaining authorization from the appropriate government for filing complaints under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 to avoid frivolous complaints and ensure the propriety of prosecution.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Ankit Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, learned Government Advocate, for the State/respondent.

2. Since the aforesaid three petitions have been filed for setting/aside of a common order dated 26.10.2016 passed in 253/ID/Act/2016 (Cri) by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Labour Court, District Durg, they are being heard together and decided by this common order.

3. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 26.10.2016 (Annexure A-1) passed in complaint Case No. 253/ID/Act/2016 (Cri) by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Labour Court, District Durg and to quash the entire proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Labour Court as Complaint Case No. 253/ID/Act/2016 (Cri), in the interest of justice.”

4. Brief facts of the present case are that Jai Balaji Industries Limited (JBIL) is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956. The present respondent has filed a complaint under Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 wherein it has been asserted that workers have been retrenched on 26.08.2016 violating the provisions of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act of 1947) which is punishable under Section 25-Q of the Act of 1947.

5. Mr. Ankit Pandey, learned counsel for petitioners submits that in the present case, a complaint was filed under the Act of 1947 by the Labour Inspector without any authority from the State Government. The impugned order dated 26.10.2016 specifically states that the complaint has been filed by the Labour Inspector, but no authorization has been filed along with the complaint. Vide order Annexure P/1, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the matter without taking into consideration the provisions of Section 34 of the Act of 1947 wherein cognizance can be taken only after sanction by the Appropriate Government. The object of Section 34 of the Act of 1947 is to avoid false and frivolous complaints and thus save a party from harassment and for this reason, the Government is required to apply its mind and determine the propriety of filing the complaint while granting sanction to prosecute.

6. For ready reference Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 is being reproduced herein-under:

“34. Cognizance of offences:

(1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or of the abetment of any such offence, save on complaint made, by or under the authority of the appropriate government.

(2) No Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.”

7. In support of his contentions, he relies on decisions of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Gupta vs. Governor, Delhi and Others, MANU/SC/0714/1997, Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609, Ravindranaatha Bajpe vs. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. MANU/SC/0715/2021, a decision of the Karnataka High Court in Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 1998 (1) LLN 928 and a decision of this Court Dinesh Kumar Mehta vs. Union of India and Others, MANU/CG/1534/2023.

8. Mr. Pandey, in Cr. M.P. No. 1158/2017 submits that the complaint filed by respondent is not maintainable in the eyes of law against the petitioners as the petitioners are not “Employer” as per the terms of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and as per the criminal jurisprudence vicarious liability cannot be readily inferred. Catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and High Courts have held that a vivid case should be spelled out in the complaint against the person sought to be made liable. Vicarious criminal liability arises only if there is specific pleading/assertions in the complaint regard