Back
2012 Supreme(Gau) 798
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
I.A Ansari, J.
Sri. Bacha Babu Singh - Appellants
Vs.
M/s. Steel Worth (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors. - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 445 of 2007
Decided On : 28.06.2012
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mrs. A. Bhattacharyya, Mr. P. Kalita and Ms. S. Baruah
For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. D. Das, Addl. PP, Assam for the Opp. Party No. 3 and Mr. U.K. Nair for the Amicus Curiae
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33 - Plantation Labour Rules - Rule 66(1) - Companies Act, 1956 - Section 630 - Employment and Service matter - Misconduct - Termination from service - Residential quarter - Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings - Petitioner was a workman of a company registered under Act, 1956 - Company has residential colony for accommodation of its workmen - Petitioner while working as a workman of company, was allotted, on his request, a residential quarter, during course of his employment, subject to condition that, on cessation of his employment, petitioner shall accordingly hand over possession of said residential quarter to company - Company terminated service of petitioner for alleged gross misconduct committed by petitioner and dismissed him from service - On termination of petitioners employment as indicated hereinbefore, company directed him to vacate said residential quarter - Whether petitioner, in terms of provisions of Rule 66 of Rules, 1956 had right to remain in occupation of said residential quarter until conclusion of proceedings, which had commenced, in Industrial Tribunal, by virtue of Notification which Government had made, if it is so, whether petitioner could have been made liable to prosecution and suffer consequential punishment as provided by Section 630 of the Companies Act - Held, It is clear that provisions, embodied in Clause (iii) of Rule 66 (1), protect the occupation of the house by a workman; who has been dismissed from service if he has already raised an industrial dispute for adjudication - In the light of the position of law, as indicated above, when one reverts to the facts of the present case, what logically follows is that, when petitioner had, as a workman, raised an industrial dispute, which had already been referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh, for adjudication, by the Government by Notification - Prosecution of petitioner for offence, under Section 630 of Act., was, in light, of facts on record and law relevant thereto, without jurisdiction, wholly impermissible and tought not to have been proceeded with - Consequently neither petitioners conviction nor the sentence, passed against him, can be sustained - Impugned judgment and order set aside - Criminal Revision disposed of.
I.A. Ansari, J.
1. I have heard Mrs. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. Notice has appeared on behalf of the complainant-opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. I have also heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel, who has appeared as amicus curiae. The material facts, leading to this revision, may, in brief, be set out as under :
(i) The petitioner was a workman of M/s. Steels Worth (Pvt.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'), a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The company has a residential colony for accommodation of its workmen. The petitioner, while working as a workman of the company, was allotted, on. his request, a residential quarter, during the course of his employment, subject to the condition that, on cessation of his employment, the petitioner shall accordingly hand over the possession of the said residential quarter to the company. However, the company terminated the service of the petitioner, w.e.f. 19.05.2001, for alleged gross misconduct committed by the petitioner and dismissed him from service. On termination of the petitioner's employment as indicated hereinbefore, the company directed him to vacate the said residential quarter. As the petitioner refused to vacate the said residential quarter, a complaint was made by the company seeking a prosecution of the petitioner, in terms of Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short, 'the Companies Act'). The complaint gave rise to CR Case No. 55 of 2002.
(ii) While the said complaint case was pending, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute. By a notification, dated 11.02.2002, the State Government made a reference, namely, Reference No. 5 of 2002, to the Industrial Tribunal, at Dibrugarh, the issues framed for adjudication being as under :
(1) Whether the termination of Shri Bacha Babu Singh by the management of M/s. Steels Worth (Pvt.) Ltd. is justified?
(2) If not, is Sri Bacha Babu Singh entitled to be reinstated in his service with full back wages, or what relief is he entitled to?
(iii) When the Reference was pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, at Dibrugarh, the petitioner, who was facing prosecution in CR Case No. 55 of 2002, sought for stay of his prosecution by filing a revision, which gave rise to Criminal Revision 22(4)/2002. This revision was, however, dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, and the complaint case accordingly proceeded.
(iv) During the course of trial, the particulars of offence, under Section 630 of the Companies Act, were explained to the petitioner. The petitioner denied that he had committed the offence alleged to have been committed by him. The trial culminated into judgment and order, dated 08.01.2004, whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, convicted the accused-petitioner for offence punishable under Section 630 of the Companies Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month with further direction that the convicted person, i.e., the petitioner herein, shall deliver/hand over possession of the said residential quarter to the company within two months and, in default thereof, suffer imprisonment for a term of one year.
(v) Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence, passed against him, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which gave rise to Criminal Appeal No. 9(1)/2004. By judgment and order, dated 20.07.2004, the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, dismissed the appeal.
(vi) In the meanwhile, however, the learned Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh, delivered its award, on 24.6.2004, in Reference No. 5 of 2002 aforementioned, partly in favour of the petitioner inasmuch as his termination from service by the employer was held to be justified and he (i.e., the petitioner herein) was directed to be reinstated in service, but he was held to be not entitled to his full back wages, notwithstanding his reinstatement
