Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 2251
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Pankaj Bhandari, J.
M.L. JANGID - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 717 of 2004
Decided On : 12-05-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Gupta with Ms. Sakshi Swami, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Dhramendra Jain, Adv.
Non-compliance of an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is not a continuing offence for the purpose of computing limitation under Section 468 of the CrPC, and prosecuting the petitioners after a lapse of 23 years for an offence with a maximum sentence of six months would amount to an abuse of process of court.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 29, 17A, 19, 468 CRPC - LIMITATION FOR TAKING COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE - CONTINUING OFFENCE - COMPLIANCE OF AWARD - PROSECUTION SANCTION - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - DROPPING OF PROCEEDINGS - AWARD TO BE COMPLIED WITHIN THREE MONTHS - NON-COMPLIANCE OF AWARD - AWARD BECOMES ENFORCEABLE AFTER 30 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION - AWARD TO REMAIN IN OPERATION FOR ONE YEAR - NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF AWARD - BREACH OF AWARD - PUNISHMENT - AWARD SPECIFICALLY FIXED THREE MONTHS TIME FOR COMPLIANCE - COURT CANNOT TAKE COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE AFTER ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE - GRANT OF SELECTION SCALE AND PROMOTION NOT A PART OF THE AWARD - INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AFTER A LAPSE OF SIX YEARS AND TAKING OF COGNIZANCE AFTER A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR CANNOT BE SUSTAINED - PROSECUTING THE PETITIONERS AFTER A LAPSE OF 23 YEARS FOR AN OFFENCE WHEREIN MAXIMUM SENTENCE PROVIDED IS SIX MONTHS WOULD TANTOUMONT TO ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the order of the lower court dismissing their application to drop proceedings initiated against them for non-compliance of an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. The award directed the Housing Board to consider the respondent as Junior Assistant from 20.03.1979 and pay him salary accordingly, and to consider him in service from 20.03.1979 and award him benefits and salary within three months. The petitioners contended that the award was complied with and that the prosecution was barred by limitation as per Section 468 of the CrPC. The respondent argued that the offence was a continuing offence and that the prosecution sanction was properly obtained.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act was punishable with imprisonment up to six months and that, as per Section 468 of the CrPC, cognizance of the offence could not be taken after the expiry of the limitation period of one year. The court found that the award specifically directed the Housing Board to comply within three months and that the award became enforceable on 14.05.1994. The court also noted that the award did not include the grant of selection scale and promotion, and that the respondent was not entitled to these benefits within the three-month compliance period. The court concluded that the initiation of proceedings after a lapse of six years and the taking of cognizance after a period of one year could not be sustained and that prosecuting the petitioners after 23 years for an offence with a maximum sentence of six months would amount to an abuse of process of court.
Issues: 1. Whether the offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act was a continuing offence. 2. Whether the prosecution sanction was properly obtained. 3. Whether the award was complied with. 4. Whether the initiation of proceedings after a lapse of six years and the taking of cognizance after a period of one year could be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act was not a continuing offence as the award specifically fixed a three-month period for compliance. 2. The court held that the prosecution sanction was properly obtained as the officers were on deputation with the Housing Board and the respondent had obtained authorization to file a complaint before launching criminal prosecution. 3. The court held that the award was complied with as the Housing Board had paid the respondent the salary of a Junior Assistant from 20.03.1979 to 19.07.1979 and had quashed the orders declaring the respondent's appointment as illegal. 4. The court held that the initiation of proceedings after a lapse of six years and the taking of cognizance after a period of one year could not be sustained as it would amount to an abuse of process of court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and quashed the proceedings pending before the lower court.
Pankaj Bhandari, J.
Petitioners have preferred these misc. petitions aggrieved by order dated 28.05.2004, whereby the Court below has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners for dropping the proceedings.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent, Mahaveer Prasad Jain, moved the Industrial Tribunal for setting aside the orders dated 30.01.1986 and 07.05.1986 and for considering him as Junior Assistant from 20.03.1979 and for awarding the benefits thereof. The Industrial Tribunal passed the award on 31.01.1994 which was published in the official gazette on 14.04.1994.
3. Respondent, Mahaveer Prasad Jain, applied to the Labour Commissioner for granting permission to prosecute the Secretary of Rajasthan Housing Board, which sanction was granted on 20.12.2000. Thereafter, respondent filed the complaint under Section 29, 34 (I) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Court below on 07.07.2001. The Court below took cognizance.
4. An application was filed by the petitioners seeking dropping of proceedings which application was dismissed by the impugned order, aggrieved which the present misc. petitions have been preferred.
5. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the award was complied with. The award directed that the respondent be considered as Junior Assistant and he be paid salary of Junior Assistant from 20.03.1979 to 19.07.1979, which part of the award was complied. The orders passed by Housing Board dated 30.01.1986 and 07.05.1986 were declared as illegal and were quashed by the Labour Court. Further direction was given that the respondent, Mahaveer Prasad Jain, be considered to be in service from 20.03.1979 and he be awarded benefits and salary within a period of three months.
6. It is further contended by counsel for the petitioner that the award was to be complied with within a period of three months and on non-compliance, cognizance under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act can be taken within a period of one year as per section 468 of Cr.P.C., 1973
7. It is also contended that the Sanction Order permitted the respondent to file complaint against Secretary, Rajasthan Housing Board which sanction according to the counsel for the petitioner is not proper in eyes of law as the sanction has not been granted with respect to particular officers who were holding the post of Secretary, Rajasthan Housing Board.
8. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 1986 LAB. I.C. 1123 M/S "Swaranjit Singh and Others v. State and another."
9. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the misc. petitions. His contentions is that the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal has not been complied by the petitioners till date and the writ petitions filed by the Housing Board stands dismissed by the High Court
10. It is contended that non-compliance of the award passed by Industrial Tribunal is a continuing offence and, therefore, provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C., 1973 would not apply. It is also contended that the provisions of section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 should be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court, it should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution and High Court should not assume the role of the trial Court and embark upon an enquiry as to reliability of the evidence and sustainability of the accusation. Reliance in this respect has been placed on "State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa & Anr." 2002 (3) SCC 89.
11. It is contended by counsel for the respondent that offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Tribunal Act is continuing offence. Reliance in this regard has been placed on "Subrato Roy & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr." R.L.R. 1989 (1) 665.
12. With regard to prosecution sanction. It is argued by counsel that prosecution sanction is not required as the officers were on deputation with the Housing Board and sanction to file complaint as per provisions of Industrial Tribunal Acts, was obtained by the respondent before launching criminal prosecution.
