Liability under Section 29 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is limited to the person responsible for implementing the award.

By Court.-Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

2. When the services of Govind Mahato were terminated by the Management of the Company industrial dispute was raised and whereby reference was made before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1. Dhanbad vide Reference No. 136/1991. In that case the award was passed in favour of the employee on 15th May, 2000, whereby the employer was directed to reinstate the employee in the services with 25% back wages.

Being aggrieved with that award, a writ petition vide CWJC No. 472/2001 was preferred before this Court which was admitted on 5.2.2001. Admittedly, this Court never stayed the operation of the award dated 15th May, 2000. In course of time Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central, Dhanbad, issued a notice to the petitioners to show cause as to why the prosecution be not launched on account of non-implementation of the award dated 15th May, 2000. In response to that notice, it was intimated to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central Dhanbad, that against the award dated 15th May, 2000, a writ application has been preferred, which has been admitted and in the said case an application for staying the operation of the award has also been filed. It was also intimated that the petitioners are waiting for the final out come of the case. There upon, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central, Dhanbad, lodged a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad for non-implementation of the award by the petitioners. The said complaint was registered as I.D. Case No. 526 of 2001. Upon which, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 29 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, was taken against the petitioners, which is under challenge.

3. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, since the award had been challenged in this Court in CWJC No. 472/2001, which has been admitted and the petitioners were waiting for the final outcome of the case, no step was taken for implementation of the award and therefore, in such eventuality, it can easily be said that the petitioners had no mens rea at all for not implementing the award and under the circumstances, the petitioners cannot be said to have committed offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, Further submission, which was advanced, is that the persons, who were never concerned with the implementation of the award cannot be prosecuted for an offence under Section 29 read with Section 32 of the Act, rather only the person, who was responsible for not implementing the award can be prosecuted for an offence under Section 29 read with Section 32 of the Act. In this regard, it was stated that under the Certified Standing Order the disciplinary authority is the Project Officer/Agent of the colliery and, accordingly, he is the appointing authority and, thereby, the petitioners, other than petitioner No. 6, who, at the relevant point of time was the Project Officer, cannot be prosecuted under Section 29 of the Industrial Dispute Act.

Learned counsel in support of his submissions, has referred to a decision rendered in the case of “M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Union of India and others, reported in 2002 (3), JCR 119 (Jhr) : 2002 (1) JLJR 2002 (1) JLJR 811.” Thus, it was submitted that the order taking cognizance, is it to be quashed so far as petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 are concerned. It was submitted that so far as petitioner No. 6 is concerned, he can not be prosecuted also as the matter since was pending before this Court, he was waiting for final outcome of the case and as such he cannot be said to have had any mens rea not to implement the award passed in favour of the employee and in the circumstances also the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed so far as petitioner No. 6 is concerned.

4. As against this, Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 submits that admittedly, when