Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 1805
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. THARANI, J.
R. Ramesh & Another – Appellants
Versus
The State Represented by, Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Enforcement), Sivagangai. – Respondent
Crl.O.P(MD).No. 3506 of 2020 & Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos. 1883 & 1884 of 2020
Decided On : 02-06-2023
For the Petitioner:M. Saravanakumar, Advocate. For the Respondent:M. Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proceedings for reinstatement and subsequent salary under the Industrial Disputes Act were not maintainable against the petitioner as the original employer was a different entity, and no individual criminal liability was explained in the private complaint.
Headnote:
Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act - Section 2(A)(2), Section 29(a), Section 34 - The court discussed the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, including the orders for reinstatement, payment of salary, and the settlement in Lok Adalath. The court also considered the liability of the company and the individual in the proceedings. The decision was influenced by the interpretation of the Act's provisions and the settlement in Lok Adalath.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between the petitioner and a former employee, Sornam, who was seeking reinstatement and subsequent salary. The petitioner failed to comply with the orders of the Labour Commissioner, leading to a private complaint being filed against the petitioner under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proceedings against the petitioner for reinstatement were not maintainable as the original employer was the TWAD Board, and the individual liability of the petitioner was not explained in the private complaint. Consequently, the court quashed the proceedings in S.T.C.No.434 of 2019.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's compliance with the orders for reinstatement and payment of salary, the maintainability of the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, and the individual liability of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proceedings against the petitioner for reinstatement were not maintainable as the original employer was the TWAD Board, and no criminal liability could be fixed on the petitioner in his personal capacity.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was allowed, and the proceedings in S.T.C.No.434 of 2019 were quashed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying this Court to call for the records in S.T.C.No.434 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, Sivagangai District and quash the same.)
1. This petition is filed to quash the chargesheet in S.T.C.No.434 of 2019, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.
2. The respondent herein has filed a private complaint against the petitioner herein stating that one Sornam who was working under the petitioner herein was suspended for damaging a pipe. Even after the criminal case against him was ended in acquittal, he was not reinstated in the job and he filed a case under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act against the petitioner and the same was taken on file as I.D.No.44 of 2008 and the Labour Commissioner passed an order to reinstate the said Sornam within a period of three months and to pay him salary and the costs of the case. The petitioner did not comply the order of the Labour Commissioner and a petition under Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act was filed claiming a sum of Rs.2,78,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand only) as subsequent salary. The petitioner failed to pay the amount. E.P. Was filed. The property that belonged to the petitioner was attached. The case was referred to Lok Adalath wherein the said Sornam received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation and the petition was closed. Even after several petition for reinstatement, the petitioner failed to reinstate the said Sornam. A report was filed to the Government and the respondent herein was permitted to take action under Section 29(a) of the Labour Act. As per G.O.Ms.No.535 dated 26.09.2019, the private complaint was filed to take action against the petitioner herein.
3. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the said Sornam was engaged by TWAD Board as a casual labourer and he was allotted to work in the drinking water scheme under the petitioner Panchayat Union and on the basis of the criminal complaint, he was suspended from service on 18.03.1992. Thereafter, the Panchayat suspended the said Sornam and other six employees as per the proceedings dated 01.04.1993. After a lapse of the 15 years, the said Sornam has filed a petition before the Labour Court in I.D.No.44 of 2008 and he obtained an exparte award on 09.01.2005. Though the said question regarding the limitation was raised, the Labour Court without answering the limitation point has allowed the I.D.
4. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that based on the exparte award, the said Sornam filed a claim petition in C.P.No.45 of 2015 and the same was referred to Lok Adalath and on compromise, the said Sornam was given Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as full and final settlement. The said Sornam had undertaken that he would not file any petition in future against the award made in the Lok Adalath. Suppressing all these facts, the said Sornam has filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.6782 of 2018 with a prayer to direct the State to act upon his complaint dated 29.09.2017 and to take action against the petitioner under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes act for non implementing the order passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.44 of 2008. The writ petition was allowed at the admission stage without issuing notice to the petitioner herein. The said Sornam has subsequently made an endorsement that he would not have any further action against the award and he would not file any CP petition. Suppressing the above version, he has filed a writ petition and he obtained an order at the admission stage.
5. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner joined as the Commissioner in Kanangudi Panchayat Union on 03.08.2017. The writ petition was allowed on 28.03.2018 without notice to the petitioner herein. The order copy was received on 06.06.2018. Thereafter the petiti
