Recognition of the limited jurisdiction for prosecuting parties under the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing enforceability of Labor Court awards against identified entities only.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners have filed the criminal writ petition challenging the order dated 09.06.2017 issued by the Additional Labour Commissioner, to grant prosecution sanction against the petitioners for disobeying the orders of the Labour Court. Petitioners have also assailed the order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby on the basis of aforesaid sanction for prosecution, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for committing offence under Section 29 read with Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947').

2. It is stated that the petitioner No.1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and was earlier known by the name of Bombay Suburban Electric Supply (B.S.E.S). It is stated that the respondent No.3-workman raised one industrial dispute before the conciliation officer raising grievance that he was employed by B.S.E.S Ltd. and when his services were illegally terminated on 12.06.1997. On account of there being no settlement before the Conciliation Officer, a failure report was submitted to the appropriate Government and ultimately, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Jaipur Ist, for adjudication which was registered as LCR No. 142/1999. Pursuant to such reference in respect of earlier termination dated 12.06.1997, the respondent-workman filed a statement of claim. However, during the proceeding before the Labour Court, one compromise was entered into where it was agreed between the respondent-workman and M/s Transex Service Private Ltd. (respondent No.4 in the instant writ petition), who was referred to as the employer in the compromise that the respondent-workman shall be reinstated back by respondent No.4 in service by maintaining continuity in service and would be granted pay in the pay scale of Rs.2250/- along with 10% H.R.A. per month. It was also agreed by respondent-workman that he had relinquished his back wages and M/s Transex Service Private Ltd. shall issue a fresh appointment letter to engage the respondent-workman at Delhi office. It was also agreed in the compromise that the respondent-workman shall work in the office of respondent No.4-M/s Transex Service Private Ltd. and shall have no connection whatsoever with B.S.E.S. Ltd. (erstwhile company of petitioner No.1).

3. It is further case of respondent-workman that although he was reinstated back in service by the respondent No.4, yet by issuing one termination letter dated 25.02.2004, again his services were terminated by the respondent No.4. Under constraining circumstances feeling aggrieved by termination letter dated 25.02.2004, the respondent workman again raised industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, yet on accoount of failure report submitted by the Conciliation Officer due to unsuccessful conciliation, the appropriate Government again referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court which was registered as LCR No. 49/2005. Terms of reference are reproduced as under:

4. Thereafter respondent-workman filed his statement of claim in LCR No. 49/2005 praying for reinstatement by declaring the termination order dated 25.02.2004 as illegal.

5. Erstwhile B.S.E.S. Ltd. through Managing Director was impleaded as non-applicant No. 1 in the statement of claim, whereas its Branch Manager at Jaipur was impleaded as non- applicant No.3. Transe