Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Ajit Borthakur, J.
Naresh Kumar Sinha And Others - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And Anr - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 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 - COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE - PRESUMPTION OF GUILTY - BURDEN OF PROOF - VALIDITY OF COMPLAINT - VALIDITY OF COGNIZANCE - DISPUTED FACT - PRINCIPLE OF CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY - AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - 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, but many workers accepted a "Goodwill Package Scheme" and withdrew their claims. The remaining workers filed a contempt petition, which was withdrawn with liberty to avail appropriate remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Subsequently, a complaint was filed against the petitioners for deliberate breach of the award, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offense and issued summons to the petitioners. The petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complaint prima facie disclosed the commission of an offense without any critical examination of the contesting materials, which were subject to testing during trial only. The court also held that the petitioners, as persons concerned with the management of ONGC, had the burden to prove that the offense was committed without their knowledge or consent. The court further held that the award was not a time-bound award in strict terms, and its implementation within a reasonable time was required. The court also held that the complaint was valid as it was filed by an authorized person of the Government of India. The court also held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken valid cognizance of the offense after considering the materials placed before it and finding a prima facie case. The court also held that the disputed fact of whether the award had been implemented could not be decided in the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint prima facie disclosed the commission of an offense? 2. Whether the petitioners had the burden to prove that the offense was committed without their knowledge or consent? 3. Whether the award was a time-bound award? 4. Whether the complaint was valid? 5. Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken valid cognizance of the offense? 6. Whether the disputed fact of whether the award had been implemented could be decided in the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A complaint prima facie discloses the commission of an offense if it reveals, on its face, that the accused has committed an offense without any critical examination of the contesting materials. 2. In a prosecution under Section 29 read with Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the petitioners, as persons concerned with the management of the company, have the burden to prove that the offense was committed without their knowledge or consent. 3. An award that does not specify a time limit for its implementation is not a time-bound award in strict terms, and its implementation within a reasonable time is required. 4. A complaint is valid if it is filed by an authorized person of the Government of India under Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. A Chief Judicial Magistrate takes valid cognizance of an offense after considering the materials placed before it and finding a prima facie case. 6. A disputed fact of whether an award has been implemented cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and directed the petitioners to appear before the trial court within a specified time. The court also vacated the interim stay order and directed the trial court to adjudicate the matter expeditiously within a period of six months.
JUDGMENT
Ajit Borthakur, J. - 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-
".... it is held that the concerned workmen are all employees of the ONGC in Cachar Project. As the workmen are in continuous service since 1987, having requisite qualification and experiences they are entitled to regularization in their respective post as per Clause (2) of the Certified Standing Order of the Contingent Employees of ONGC." 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 thereb
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
