V. D. BHARGAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Sections 561a and 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings or in the alternative to transfer the case from Moradabad to some other adjoining district. The applicant Sri D. G. Athalye was Resident Engineer of the Upper Ganges valley Electricity Supply Company, Ltd. , Moradabad, on 12 March 1956 but on the date of the prosecution he had ceased to be so. There were labour disputes pending between the company, of which the applicant was the Resident Engineer, and its employees, one of them being one Sri g. S. Srivastava, mains foreman. These labour disputes had been pending both before the regional Conciliation Officer, Kanpur, and the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, India, lucknow, and also before the Labour Appellate Tribunal in appeal. The company wanted to dismiss Sri G. S. Srivastava on account of misconduct and therefore permission was sought from the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow, to dismiss him as required under Section 22 of the Industrial disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. Section 22 of it runs as follows: during the period of thirty days allowed for the filing of an appeal under Section 10 or during the pendency of any appeal under this Act, no employer shall (a)* * * (b) discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workman concerned in such appeal, save with the express permission in writing of the Appellate Tribunal.

( 2 ) ON 8 March 1956 the industrial tribunal gave permission to the company to dismiss Sri srivastava and thereupon Sri G. S. Srivastava was dismissed.

( 3 ) THE District Magistrate of Moradabad thereafter instituted a complaint under Section 14 of the uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act read with 01. 29 of the Government Notification No. 4-464 (LL/xxxvi-B-257 (LL)/1954 dated 14 July 1954, on the ground that the workman was dismissed without the permission of the regional conciliation officer of the area concerned. Clause 29 of thei said notification reads as follows:

During the pendency of any conciliation proceedings or proceedings before the tribunal or an adjudicator in respect of any dispute. . . an employer shall not (a) * * * (b) discharge or punish, whether such punishment is by dismissal or otherwise, any workman concerned in such dispute, save with the express permission in writing of a conciliation officer of the area concerned, irrespective of the fact whether the dispute is pending before a board or the tribunal or an adjudicator.

( 4 ) CLAUSE 33 of the same order provides: any person who contravenes or attempts to contravene any provisions of this order or abets any such contravention shall be liable, on conviction, to fine or to imprisonment not exceeding three years or both.

( 5 ) IT has been asserted that since the matter had been pending both before the Appellate. Tribunal as well as the regional conciliation officer, the applicant thought that the permission of the appellate authority to dismiss would be enough and no separate permission from the conciliation officer was. . . necessary. It has further been stated that in similar cases when permission of the regional conciliation officer of the area concerned had been sought for, such officers had declined to give permission on the ground that the permission of the Appellate tribunal alone would be deemed sufficient and that no permission of the conciliation officer was necessary. In order to support his case the applicant has filed as annexure E an order of the additional Regional Conciliation Officer, Bareilly, dated 7 October 1953, where the regional conciliation officer did not pass any order on the ground that proceedings relating to that concern were pending to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in which workmen were involved. He had ordered that the employers, if they so desired, should take permission under Section 22of the industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. Similar is the order by the s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document