Back
2018 Supreme(Ori) 570
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Dr. D.P. CHOUDHURY, J.
CRLMC NO. 2713 OF 2004
(Date of Judgment : 19.06.2018)
In matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
R.R. Vederah … Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa … Opp. Party
For Petitioner:Mr. J. Das, Senior Advocate,
M/s. A.N. Das, A.N. Pattnaik, N. Sarkar and E.A.Das
For Opp. Party : Mr. P.K. Mohanty Additional Standing Counsel
Headnote:1. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - Secs. 25-R (2) read with Sec.25-O(2) - Order of closure of the institution having been made by applying the deeming provision u/s. 25-O (3), no provision has been violated to attract penalty u/s.25-R (2) of the Act - Learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the fact and law with proper perspective - Order of the learned Magistrate being vulnerable and same being passed without application of judicial mind, does not stand to the scrutiny of law - Order of taking cognizance and issuance of process to the petitioner being abuse of process of Court, the same is quashed. (Para - 16)
2. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - Sec. 25 - Date of delivery of application to the State Government shall be deemed to be the date on which application is made as per Sec. 25 (1) and 25(3) of the said Act - Sixty days is to be counted if the application is made, that means the date when the State Government received, is the date on which the period of sixty days commences. (Para - 10)
3. INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - Salutary principle of interpretation is that when the provisions are unambiguous, the literal interpretation of the words used should be the rule and the Court is not required to substitute the said meaning either borrowing from any other Statute or taking help of the General Clauses Act. (Para -10)
JUDGMENT
DR. D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. - Challenging has been made to the order of taking cognizance under Sections 25-R (2) read with Section 25-O(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called “the Act”) and issuance of process against the petitioner.
2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was the Director of M/s. Ballarpur Industries Limited (hereinafter called ‘BILT’). State of Orissa in Labour Department made complaint that on 18.12.2002 the establishment of the petitioner sent notice to the State Government seeking permission to close its undertaking in terms of Section 25-0 of the ct read with Orissa Industrial Disputes Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called “the Rules”). Since within sixty days of receipt of the said notice by the State Government, no permission was received, the establishment of the petitioner issued notification to close the same with effect from 31.3.2003. But the State Government alleged that before the period of sixty days is over, the establishment of the petitioner issued notice of closure of the institution for which petitioner being the Director of the organization is liable under Section 25-R (2) of the Act. So, the complaint was filed. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process.
SUBMISSION
3. Mr. J.Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the State Government in Labour Department has not followed the provisions of law properly. According to him, the application for closure was made on 23.12.2002 and sixty days have been lapsed in the mid night of 19/20.2.2003, but the State Government already refused to accord permission on 18.2.2003, which was not received by 19/20.2.2003 for which under deeming provision of Section 25-0 (1) and (3) of the Act the organization of the petitioner issued notice of closure. On the other hand, he submitted that since within sixty days from the date of making application no permission of closure is received, the organization of the petitioner issued the notice of closure. So, the petitioner is not liable for any breach of provision of law and as such the complaint is not maintainable.
4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the undertaking of the petitioner has no work force of any nature either permanent or contractual, closure was invited as per the provisions of law, the organization has sought for permission but the State failed to act in accordance with law for which the notification of closure was issued. But the learned Magistrate has committed error by not applying mind to the fact and law of this case for which the said impugned order is vulnerable and liable to be quashed.
5. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that issue of communication is closely involved with the case. According to him, the interpretation of relevant provision under Section 25-0 of the Act and Rule 82-A of the Rule is required in this case. Necessary order of refusal of closure of the organization has been well communicated within sixty days and the argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct. BILT made request to the State Government under Section 25-O of the Act on 18.12.2002 and said application was received on 23.12.2002. According to Section 25-0 (2) of the Act, the decision to refuse grant permission of closure of the organization was passed on 18.2.2003 and on the same day it was communicated to BILT. Section 25-O (3) mandates that where an application has been made under sub-section (1) of said Section and the appropriate Government does not communicate the order granting or refusing to grant permission to the employer within a period of sixty days from the date on which such application is made, it shall be deemed to have been granted on the expiration of the said period of sixty days.
6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted further that the word ‘communication’ carries
