The protection under Section 197 of the CrPC is not applicable to officials of public sector undertakings, and the court cannot determine a disputed question of fact under Section 482 of the CrPC.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`CrPC') seeking quashing of the Order dated 05.10.2009 (`Impugned Order') passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (`Ld. MM') and the proceedings emanating from Complaint Case No. 35/2004, filed under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. The instant case relates to an industrial dispute which arose between the management and workmen of New India Assurance Company Limited, Regional Office-II, New Delhi (`Company') around 2002. The dispute relates to the issue of calculating the seniority of part time sweepers "State- Wise", instead of the prior practice of calculating such seniority "Place- wise".

3. On account of this dispute, conciliatory meetings of the management and workmen of the Company were held on various occasions. These meetings culminated in the drawing up of a Memorandum of Settlement (`MoS') dated 16.07.2002, in terms of Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of the MoS are being reproduced below for ready reference:

"1. The management will take up the matter with Head Office for creation of 25 vacancies and to recommend to Head Office to balance the seniority list state wise instead of place wise, to which the federation has agreed to.

2. The parties will submit progress report within 60 days from today and if nothing is heard, it will be presumed that the settlement has been implemented."

4. It has been stated by the Petitioner i.e., Mr. S. Mamman, the then AGM of the Management of the Company, that the Management had complied with the MoS by taking up the matter with the Head Office of the Company, vide letter dated 23.07.2002. In this letter it was recorded that the Management recommended that the seniority for future vacancies was to be considered on a State-wise basis.

5. It has been stated by the Petitioner that despite due this, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) issued a Show-Cause Notice dated 28.11.2002 stating that the Management had failed to meet the terms of the MoS.

6. The Petitioner responded to the Show-Cause Notice vide letters dated 11.12.2002 and 12.12.2002. By way of these letters, the Petitioner stated that in compliance with the terms of the MoS the Management had in fact advised the Head Office to consider the seniority State-wise, however, the same was found to be unviable by the Head Office as the vacancies themselves arose Centre-wise and not State-wise.

7. Thereafter, another Show-Cause Notice dated 26.03.2003 was issued to the Dy. Manager and Administrative Officer of the Company seeking compliance with the terms of the MoS. The Administrative Officer duly responded to the said Show-Cause Notice stating that the matter had already been dealt with, thereby requesting the good office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) to drop the Show-Cause Notice.

8. However, not only were the aforementioned Show-Cause Notices not withdrawn, but a Complaint Case bearing No. 35/2004 was filed against the Petitioner before the Ld. Trial Court under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (`Complaint Case.).

9. A preliminary ground regarding the maintainability of the Complaint Case was raised by Petitioner due to the failure of the Labour Enforcement Officer to obtain a requisite sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC. However, vide Order dated 02.06.2005, the Ld. Trial Court held that the sanction under section 197 of the CrPC was not necessary in the instant case as the Petitioner did not qualify as a public servant.

10. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a Revision Petition bearing No. 85/2006 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi (`Revision Petition') impugning the Order dated 02.06.2005. Vide Order dated 17.11.2007, the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi remanded the matter back to the Ld. Trial Court as the Ld. Trial Court did