( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by the petitioner/management of M/s Ircon International Limited against its employee, respondent No. 5, Shri V. K. Talwar, on the basis of what are averred to be false averments made in this Court in the application under Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act i. e. CM 8057/2000 supported by an affidavit. The sum and substance of the petitioner s case is that in order to buttress his claim under Section 17 B of the Act, the respondent No. 5 had averred that he was out of employment since 1983 and to counter a plea raised by the petitioner in CM 11121/2000, the respondent also averred that he had secured a passport only in 1998 and had been present in India without any interruption ever since 1983 till September 2000. The petitioner s case was that the said claim was false was evident inter alia from the fact that the respondent No. 5 had been in possession of a passport much prior to 1998 and the VISA endorsement showed that he was given transfer of residence permit by paying Rs. 1,58,000. 00 which is only possible if a stay abroad was for more than 2 years and above.

( 2 ) THE sum and substance of the averments in the present application under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code is as under:

A) as per the requirement of Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act that after respondent No. 5 s dismissal from services with the petitioner on 7th December 1983, he had not been in gainful employment and consequently payment under Section 17 B of the Act was claimed during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court.

( 3 ) IT is thus stated by the respondent No. 5 in his application CM 8057/2000 under Section 17b, filed in this Court that he was not gainfully employed since 7th December 1983 till the date of the filing of the application under Section 17 B of the Act on 14th September 2000.

( 4 ) THE petitioner has summarized the false averments made by respondent No. 5 as under:-

(I)" In his application under Section 17 B at pages 102-103 para 5 which reads as "the respondent no. 5 is filing the accompanying affidavit to the effect that respondent no. 5/workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period and, therefore, the workman/respondent No. 5 is entitled to the statutory relief in the event of any Award dated 15-5-2000 passed by the labour court. " (ii) At page 103. Para 6 "that the respondent/workman is out of employment ever since December 1983 as per the Single Order of dismissal, dated 7-12-1983 through which the respondent as well as co-worker Ajay Kumar were dismissed from the services on the alleged ground of insubordination with immediate effect without holding any enquiry. " (iii) At page 104 para 7. . . . . The family of the respondent No. 5 consists of his aged parents, his wife and two minor daughters of the age of 15 and 5 years respectively and being out of employment for 17 years, when the labour court could finally decide his dispute after the outcome of the writ petition as well as the LPA pending before this Hon ble Court, the respondent No. 5/applicant should not be allowed to starve any further, more particularly in view of Section 17b of the I. D. Act. " (iv) Affidavit at page 106, para 2 "that I state on affirmation that I have not been employed in any establishment, during the period of the pendency of my industria1 dispute pending in the labour court commencing from the date of my dismissal, i. e. 7-12-83 till date nor I was gainfully employed during the period with a hope that I shall be reinstated with all backwages and I have been pursuing the matter along with my co-worker, Shri Ajay Kumar who preferred the Civil Writ Petition No. 389/84 in the High Court. " (v) In his reply to petitioner s application i. e. C. M. No. 11121 of 2000 at page 196 at the bottom " This belated application asking the answering respondent to produce his passport has got no relevance in the