IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
AJIT BORTHAKUR, J.
Naresh Kumar Sinha and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Union Of India And Anr. – Respondent
Crl.Pet. 292 of 2015
Decided on : 12-10-2020
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 29 - SECTION 32 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 482 - SECTION 205 - SECTION 313(1) - SECTION 197 - COMPANIES ACT, 1956 - SECTION 617 - AWARD IMPLEMENTATION - NON-COMPLIANCE - CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - QUASHING - PUBLIC SERVANT - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY - AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT - JURISDICTION - SCOPE OF SECTION 482 - PRESUMPTION OF GUILT - TIME BOUND AWARD - ENFORCEABILITY - BENEFITS OF SECTIONS 205 & PROVISO TO SECTION 313(1) - VALID COMPLAINT - VALID COGNIZANCE - IMPLEMENTATION OF AWARD DISPUTED - PRINCIPLE OF CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY - AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT - SANCTION - CONCLUSION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, senior executives of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC), challenged the criminal proceedings initiated against them for non-implementation of an Industrial Tribunal Award in favor of contractual workers. The Award was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008. Petitioners contended that the complaint was not maintainable, they were not public servants requiring sanction for prosecution, and the Award was already implemented. The respondent Union of India and the workers' union opposed the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the complaint prima facie disclosed an offense under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the petitioners were concerned with the management of ONGC and responsible for implementing the Award. The Court also held that the petitioners were not public servants requiring sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as they were officers of a government company. The Court further held that the Award was not a time-bound Award and its implementation was still enforceable. The Court also held that the complaint was valid and the trial court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense. The Court also held that the principle of corporate criminal liability applied, and the ONGC should have been impleaded as an accused in the complaint. However, the Court allowed the amendment of the complaint to implead ONGC as an accused. The Court also held that the petitioners could raise the issue of sanction at any time during the trial. The Court directed the petitioners to appear before the trial court and disposed of the petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint was maintainable? 2. Whether the petitioners were public servants requiring sanction for prosecution? 3. Whether the Award was already implemented? 4. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense? 5. Whether the principle of corporate criminal liability applied? 6. Whether the complaint could be amended to implead ONGC as an accused? 7. Whether the petitioners could raise the issue of sanction at any time during the trial?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A complaint prima facie disclosing an offense under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the petitioners were concerned with the management of ONGC and responsible for implementing the Award is maintainable. 2. Officers of a government company are not public servants requiring sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. An Award that is not a time-bound Award and its implementation is still enforceable. 4. A complaint that is valid and the trial court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense. 5. The principle of corporate criminal liability applies to government companies. 6. A complaint can be amended to implead a government company as an accused. 7. The petitioners can raise the issue of sanction at any time during the trial.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed. The Court directed the petitioners to appear before the trial court and disposed of the petition.
JUDGMENT :
The core dispute between the parties relates to non-implementation of the terms of an Award for last more than 26 years.
2. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned A.S.G.I. representing the respondent No. 1/the Union of India as well as Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No. 2.
3. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for setting aside and quashing the proceeding in C.R. Case No. 46/2015 pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (‘C.J.M.’ for short), Cachar at Silchar and the order, dated 27.01.2015 passed therein taking cognizance of the offence under Section 29 read with Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘I.D. Act’ for short) against them.
PETITIONERS’ CASE:
4. The petitioners’ case, in a nutshell, is that they are Senior Executives of the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (‘O.N.G.C. Ltd.’ for short), which was originally known as the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (‘O.N.G.C.’ for short). It is a Government of India company. The petitioners have contended that in pursuance of the demands raised by the O.N.G.C. Contractual Workers’ Union, Silchar, Assam for regularization of the contractual workers and on failure of the conciliation proceeding in this regard, initiated by the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central), Silchar, the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi by a notification, dated 20.08.1990, referred the aforesaid dispute to the Central Industrial Tribunal, (‘C.I.T.’ for short) Guwahati, Assam for adjudication and accordingly, the said reference was registered as Reference No. 6 (C)/1990. The O.N.G.C. Ltd. contested the proceeding by filing a written objection on the ground that the reference was not maintainable as there existed no relationship of ‘employer’ and ‘workmen’ for they worked under the contractors only. The Tribunal, however, passed an Award, dated 11.07.1994, to the following effect-
Further, the Tribunal directed that:-
“It is, therefore, directed that the services of all the concerned workers are to be regularized by the O.N.G.C., phasewise, if not possible at a time with pay and other allowance paid to regular employees.”
5. Being aggrieved by the Award, the O.N.G.C. Ltd. filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being C.R. No. 3785/1994, where holding the view to the effect that the learned Tribunal acted illegally and exercised its jurisdiction by deciding the issues beyond the terms of reference, the learned Single Bench of this Court by Judgment and Order, dated 08.09.1998, allowed the aforesaid writ petition. Being aggrieved, the O.N.G.C. Contractual Workers’ Union preferred a Writ Appeal being W.A. No. 269/1998, before a Division Bench of this Court, whereby Judgment and Order, dated 24.12.1999, allowed the appeal and thereby restored the Award, dated 11.07.1994, passed by the learned Tribunal. Being aggrieved, the O.N.G.C. Ltd. preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 4755/2001 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, upon hearing the parties, by Judgment and Order, dated 16.05.2008, dismissed the aforesaid Civil Appeal No. 4755/2001 upholding the view taken by the learned Tribunal and the learned Division Bench of this Court.
6. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the aforesaid Civil Appeal No. 4755/2001, out of the 290 members of the O.N.G.C. Contractual Workers’ Union, Silchar, 163 workers and 13 workers, who died (Total 176 workers) voluntarily accepted the “Goodwill Package Scheme” and thereby agreed to withd
Ashok Chaturvedi v. Shitul H. Chanchani
G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513]
Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry [(1989) 1 SCC 494 : AIR 1989 SC 714]
Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. [(2013) 2 SCC 398 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 655]
Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. Vs. Biological E. Ltd.
Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. V. Union of India
Mohd. Hadi Raja v. State of Bihar
Mehmood-Ul-Rehman V. Khazir Mohammad Tunda
Nilgiris Bar Assn. v. T.K. Mahalingam [(1998) 1 SCC 550 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 450]
Padal Venkata Rama Reddy v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy [(2011) 12 SCC 437 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 603]
Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate [(1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400 : AIR 1998 SC 128]
Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor [(2013) 3 SCC 330 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 158]
Standard Chartered Bank V. Directorate of Enforcement
S.R.Sukumar Vs. S.Sunaad Raghuram
State of Bihar V. Sri Rajendra Agrawalla
U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Modi Distillery [(1987) 3 SCC 684 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 632]
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.