Hon’ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J.—Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, Advocate and Sri Chandan Kumar, Advocate, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Samit Gopal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application in revision has been filed by the revisionist Dinesh Chandra against the order dated 8.11.2010 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Complaint Case No. 570 of 2010 by which he has summoned the revisionist to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents have stated at the bar that they do not want to file any counter-affidavit and this application in revision may be finally disposed of at this stage.

Brief facts of the case as stated in the affidavit filed alongwith the memo of revision are that the revisionist claims that he was appointed as a General Worker in M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd., Etah Dairy, Etah, U.P. having its registered office at Hindustan Lever House, 165/166 Backbay Reclamation, Bombay-1 on 9.8.1982. The appointment letter was issued by the Factory Manager, R.S. Rana on behalf of the Company. The revisionist was confirmed by letter dated 22.11.1982 which was again issued by the Factory Manager, R.S. Rana (copies of the appointment letter and confirmation letter have been filed as Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the affidavit). The undertaking, Etah Dairy was transferred to Lipton India and the services of all its employees including the revisionist stood transferred to the Lipton India Ltd. on the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter dated 11.5.1984 of the Vice President, Personnel of the Company (Annexure No. 3).

In the year 1994 Lipton India Ltd. got amalgamated with the Brooke Bond India and the revisionist by letter of the Managing Director, Lipton India Ltd. dated 4.3.1994 (Annexure No. 21) was informed that he had become an employee of Brooke Bond India Ltd.

4. In the year 1997 the Brooke Bond India Ltd. was transferred to Hindustan Lever Ltd. again and on 24.9.1999 the undertaking at Etah was sold by the Hindustan Lever Ltd to M/s Nutritia India Pvt. Ltd. and the services of all its employees stood transferred to M/s Nutritia India Pvt. Ltd. In August, 2003 M/s Nutritia India Pvt. Ltd. sold the Etah plant to M/s Anik Industries Pvt. Ltd. A dispute arose between the revisionist on one side and M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd. and M/s Nutritia India Pvt. Ltd. on the other side over the revisionist’s entitlement to receive VRS fund under the settlement arrived at between the M/s Nutritia India Pvt. Ltd’s., Etah, undertaking and its employees upon its sale to M/s Anik Industries Ltd., when the revisionist’s employers denied that the revisionist was their regular employee. Thereafter, on 20.12.2007 the revisionist vide letter dated 20.12.2007 (Annexure No. 23) requested the Manager of M/s Nutritia India Pvt. Ltd. to return back his original documents. On 22.9.2004 (Annexure No. 24) an application was moved for conciliation by U.P. Majdoor Federation Branch Aligarh before the Labour Court. Objections were filed by the employer and rejoinder was filed on 16.8.2005 (Annexure No. 25) by the Federation. On 14.11.2005 the employers deliberately abstained from conciliation proceedings before the Labour Court on which date existence of industrial dispute was acknowledged.

On 18.7.2006 a reference was framed and forwarded to the labour Court, Etah and registered as Adjudication Case No. 193 of 2006, Dinesh Chandra v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. and others. On 31.12.2006 objections were moved by the employer and on 18.5.2007 the revisionist submitted his claim before the Labour Court (Annexure No. 30). Preliminary objections (Annexure Nos. 31 and 32) regarding the existence of an industrial dispute were filed by the Hindustan Lever Ltd. and M/s Nutritia India Pvt. Ltd to which the revisionist gave his reply on 8.5.2007 supported by the documents (