IMPORTANT POINT
Directors cannot be held liable for company actions without specific allegations of their involvement in management; vague claims are insufficient for prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

MALASRI NANDI, J.

Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B.K Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K.D Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application u/s 482 R/W Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC), praying for setting aside the order dated 01.03.2011 and 04.01.2012 in C.R Case No.37/2011 and quashing the entire proceedings of the said case, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was the former Chairman cum Managing Director of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (hereinafter referred as ONGC). On his appointment as Chairman cum Managing Director of ONGC dated 31.05.2010, the Ministry of Labour, Government of India referred the dispute between the General Manager, ONGC, Cachar Project, Silchar and the General Secretary, ONGC Contractual Workers Union to the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati for adjudication of the issue i.e. “Whether the demand of the ONGC Contractual Worker’s Union, Silchar on the Management of ONGC, Cachar Project, Silchar for regularization of the services of the contractual workers is justified”.

4. The ONGC by filling written statement before the Industrial Tribunal stated that the reference is not maintainable as there exists no relationship of employer and workmen since the workmen were never appointed by ONGC. The workmen worked under contractors in whose favour work orders were issued by the ONGC from time to time. The payments were made to such workmen by the contractors. The workmen were neither casual nor contingent workmen. The workmen being contractual workers, they cannot be regularized. After hearing the parties, the learned Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 11.07.1994 directed to regularize the concerned workers in a phasewise manner.

5. The ONGC challenged the said award before this Court by filling C.R 3785/1994. After hearing the parties, this Court vide judgment and order dated 08.09.1998 held that the Tribunal acted illegally and exercised its jurisdiction by deciding issues beyond the term of reference and allowed the writ petition. Against the said judgment, the ONGC Contractual Workers Union filed Writ Appeal vide No.269/1998 before this Court and vide order dated 24.12.1999, the Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal and restored the awards passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal.

6. The judgment dated 24.12.1999, was challenged by the ONGC before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After hearing the parties, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 16.05.2008, dismissed the civil appeal by upholding the view taken by the Industrial Tribunal and the Division Bench of this Court.

7. One Jagadish Chandra Chanda approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Silchar, Cachar praying for an appropriate order for regularization of his job in view of the order dated 16.05.2008 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is stated that he was deprived from the benefit of Goodwill Package Scheme (GPS), which ONGC formulated. Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Cachar requested the petitioners to show cause for non- implementation of the award of the Industrial Tribunal as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Pursuant to the said show cause notice, the petitioners sent a reply stating that “the scheme shall not apply to those who have not been deployed/worked during three months preceding 31.01.2007”.

8. Subsequently, the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) alleging violation of Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for not implementation of the award dated 11.07.1994, filed a complaint case against the present petitioner before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Silchar vide C.R Case No.37/2011. Accordingly, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 01.03.2011, took cognizance of offence under the sai