Point of law : Penal action for breach of Section 25(T) read with Section 2(ra) and item 1 and 7 of the Schedule- V of the Act could have been initiated against the applicant if it would have been established that the applicant had resorted to malafide practice, which was unfair to the workers. The filing of criminal complaint under Section 25T of the Act.

ORDER :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms.Nisha Thakore waives service of notice of rule for the respondent- State. Respondent No.2, though served, has not appeared.

2. The present application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Code'), seeking the following reliefs:-

“7(A). Your Lordships be pleased to quash and set aside the Criminal Case No.149 of 2019 pending in the Ld.Labour Court, Anan, in the interest of justice;

(B) Pending that admission, hearing and final disposal of this application, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Criminal Case No.149 of 2019 pending in the Ld.Labour Court, Anand, in the interest of justice”

3. The brief facts of the case as stated in the application are as under:-

3.1. The applicant is the Manager of the applicant no.1- Company. It is the case of the applicant that due to recession, the Company could not get the work at unit situated at Sunav- Kasor Road, at Piplav, District Anand. The applicant no.1- Company got the work-order at Manjusar, and therefore, the applicant no.1 started the unit at Manjusar in rental premises. To carry out the work at Manjusar, manpower was required, and therefore, the applicant no.1-Company decided to transfer some of the employees for the limited period for carrying out the work at Manjusar. The employees, who were transferred to Manjusar, did not report despite specific instructions. Instead of reporting for duty, the concerned employees through the Union lodged complaint before the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Anand. In pursuance to the complaint made by the Union, a show cause notice dated 24.10.2013 was issued. The applicant replied to the show cause notice dated 24.10.2013, by communication dated 15.11.2013. Without appreciating the reply filed by the applicant no.1, the respondent lodged criminal complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sojitra, District-Anand, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No.30 of 2014. In pursuance to the criminal complaint, the learned Principal Civil Judge, at Sojitra issued a summons on 12.12.2015 in Criminal Case No.30 of 2014.

3.2. The concerned employees did not report for the work at Manjusar, therefore, the applicant no.1-company decided to initiate departmental inquiry against them for the misconduct committed by them. As the charge against the concerned employees were proved, the applicant no.1-Company decided to terminate services of the concerned workers considering the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer. Since, the Reference (ITN) No.17 of 2014 was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad, the applicant preferred various approval applications before the Industrial Tribunal, which are pending for further adjudication.

3.3. On the administrative side, the High Court issued a notification dated 23.06.2017, whereby while exercising the power conferred under Section 11(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the power of Judicial Magistrate (First Class) to conduct the Criminal Cases arising out of the breach of the Labour Laws conferred on the Civil Judges appointed in the Labour Judiciary. Accordingly, the Criminal Case No.30 of 2014 was transferred from the Court of learned JMFC, Sojitra, Anand to the Court of learned Labour Court, Anand and renumbered as Criminal Case No.149 of 2019.

3.4. Being aggrieved by the complaint dated 02.04.2014 filed by the respondent no.2 being Criminal Case No.30 of 2014 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Sojitra, District Anand, the applicants have preferred the present application.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Prabhakar Upadyay appearing for the applicants has submitted that without ascertaining the genuineness of the complaint, the respondent no.2 lodged the complaint before the learned JMFC at Sojitra. He submitted that before filing of the complaint, respondent no.2 ought to have taken into considera