Back
1993 Supreme(Guj) 446
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :A.P.RAVANI, C.V.Jani
JAGJIVAN BHIMJI VAJA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
S.C.A.6303 of 1988
Decided On : 11/10/1993
Headnote:
Criminal Law – Criminal Trial – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120-B – Criminal Conspiracy – Fabricating false medical certificate – Bail Application – Few cases which demonstrate as to at what dare devil extent the prisoner can go for fabricating false medical certificate, case papers, etc and that too of Hospitals to dupe the High Court for obtaining bail and/or interim bail and/or getting it extended by invoking its false sympathy on feigned medical ground of undergoing special treatment for his cardiac ailment, and yet, fortunately as the things would have been, just by stroke of the sheer hand of providence, the same came to be detected because of the little care and circumspection evinced by this court at time of further extending interim bail by insisting upon the verification regarding truthfulness and genuineness of medical case papers through instrumentality of responsible police officer – Present Misc. Criminal application to extend the bail, it may briefly be stated that prisoner a practising orthopedic Surgeon, running a Hospital was tried alongwith one another accused working as his Compounder – Held, After passing above prima facie credibility test, the Medical Certificate has still one more reliability test to undergo before it can be safely accepted and relied upon. Accordingly, whenever any Medical certificate is produced to press in service for obtaining orders in matters of parole leave or bail, the proper officer has to make further inquiry by contacting Doctor concerned who is stated to have issued medical Certificate in question – Concerned Doctor should be asked whether certificate in question has been issued by him or he can identify the person in whose favour such certificate was issued – Despite these questions and answers, if some lingering doubts about the truthfulness of the certificate still persists, then the Inquiry Officer should not feel helpless to ask the Doctor to show indoor-patient register; the counterfoils of fees receipt and/or any other medical service charges and/or advance hospitalization charges, etc; the treatment chart of person concerned maintained in the hospital; (iv) and if the inquiry is made immediately, to see whether sick person so named in the certificule is actually present in hospital; the last but not the least to personally see such sick person, record his statement, ask for the medicines prescription given by the doctor and the bills regarding medicines he purchased, etc – It is this final report on the basis of which such Medical Certificate can either be accepted or rejected. Such inquiries should be prompt and at D. S. P level so that other side do not frustrate the same by "doing the needful – Before Lower Court also, pending trial, many a times the under- trial prisoners press in service the medical certificates for getting bail on ground of some sickness – Application dismissed.
( 1 ) IN both these petitions the workmen, through the representative union approved under the appropriate provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations act, 1946, have challenged the legality and validity of the order dated May 9, 1988 passed by the State Government of Gujarat declaring that the sugar factories in question is, i. e. , Una Taluka Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali Ltd. , Una (in Special Civil Application No. 6303 of 1988) and Talala Taluka Khedut Sahakari khand Udyog Mandali Ltd. , Talala (in Special Civil Application No. 6304 of 1988) are industrial establishments of seasonal character within the meaning of secs. 25-A and 25-K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
( 2 ) THE petitioners have also challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of Secs. 25-A, 25-A (2), 25-K and 25-K (2) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 ("i. D. Act" for short ). However, at the time of hearing the petitioners have not pressed the challenge to the consitutional validity of the aforesaid provisions of the I. D. Act. Hence the prayer contained in para 20 (B) and 20 (C) in both the petitions do not survive and the petition, in so far as these prayers are concerned, stand disposed of as having not been pressed. On behalf of the petitioners it is also prayed that since the petitioners do not challenge the constitutional validity of the aforesaid provisions of the Act, the petitioners may be permitted to delete respondent no. 1 in both the petitions, i. e. , Union of India through the Secretary, Labour and employment Department, New Delhi. Permission granted. In both petitions respondent No. 1 - Union of India stands deleted.
( 3 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 6303 of 1988, after the petition was filed, respondents No. 5 to 100 who claim to be permanent employees of respondent No. 4 - Industrial establishment prayed for being joined as party-respondents. They have been permitted to be joined as party-respondents as per order dated April 5, 1990. Thus in Special Civil Application No. 6303 of 1988 respondents No. 5 to 100 who are permanent employees of the establishment are also pary-respondents.
( 4 ) AT the request and with the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties both the petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. Undisputed and/or proved facts :
( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 4 in Special Civil Application No. 6303 of 1988, i. e. , Una taluka Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali Ltd. , Una, is a co-operative society registered under the appropriate provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies act, 1962 some time in the year 1963. It started its operations in the year 1967-68. Respondent No. 4 in Special Civil Application No 6304 of 1988, is Talala Taluka sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali Ltd. It is also a co-operative society registered under the appropriate provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 in the year 1968. It is not on record as to from which year it has started its operation, but is appears that this society has also commenced its commercial production some time in the year 1970. Both the societies sought to lay off their employees in the month of October/november, 1987.
( 6 ) THEREFORE on behalf of the petitioner-Unions applications under Sec. 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 ("the Act" for short) were filed in the labour Court challenging the action of putting employers on lay off, illegal change, which was sought to be introduced by the employers. Together with the aforesaid two societies, similar dispute arose in relation to one more society, i. e. , bileswar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahakari Mandali Ltd. Against that society also the concerned Union of workmen had filed applications before the Labour Court. In all the three applications the Labour Court had granted interim relief and restrained the employer from effecting the illegal change. The employers had preferred revision application under Sec. 85
