Back
2019 Supreme(MP) 382
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rohit Arya, J.
Pfizer Limited v. State of M.P.
Writ Petition No. 16765 of 2018 (I); Decided on 20.9.2019
Advocate Appeared:
Piyush Mathur with Ankur Shrivastava and Shantanu Mittal for petitioner; Abhishek Malviya, Government Advocate for respondent No. 1/State; Vismit Panot for respondent No. 2/workman.
Headnote:
(1) Words and Phrases -- "offence" -- has to be read and understood in context provided u/ss. 40, 41 and 42 of IPC or under special or local law, or as defined u/s. 2 (n) of CrPC or u/s. 3 (38) of General Clauses Act, 1897. (2010) 5 SCC 600 referred to. [Para 9
(2) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -- Ss. 29 and 34 -- jurisdiction u/s. 34 -- has to be exercised with due care and caution -- prerequisites for sanction of prosecution -- satisfaction of authority upon fulfillment of ingredients of offence together with element of mens rea -- authority is also required to ascertain and record satisfaction regarding acts of commission and omission pointing to breach of award. [Para 10
¼1½ 'kCn rFkk okD;ka'k & ^^vijk/k** & naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 40] 41 vkSj 42 ds v/khu vFkok fo'ks"k ;k LFkkuh; fof/k ds v/khu micaf/kr lanHkZ esa] vFkok naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 2 ¼<½ ds v/khu ;k lk/kkj.k [kaM vf/kfu;e] 1897 dh èkkjk 3 ¼38½ ds v/khu ifjHkkf"kr ds :Ik esa i<+k vkSj le>k tkuk gksrk gSA ¼2010½ 5 ,l lh lh 600 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 9
¼2½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 & /kkjk 29 rFkk 34 & /kkjk 34 ds v/khu vf/kdkfjrk & lE;d~ lko/kkuh vkSj lrdZrk ls iz;qDr dh tkuk gksrh gS & vfHk;kstu dh eatwjh ds fy, iwokZis{kk,¡ & vkijkf/kd eu%fLFkfr ds rF; ds lkFk vijk/k ds la?kVdksa dh iwfrZ gksus ij izkf/kdkjh dk lek/kku & izkf/kdkjh ls ;g Hkh visf{kr gS fd vf/kfu.kZ; dk Hkax bafxr djus okys ÑR;ksa vkSj yksiksa ds ckjs esa vfHkfuf'pr dj lek/kku vfHkfyf[kr djsA ¼iSjk 10
ORDER
Arya, J.--1. The Labour Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, Indore in purported exercise of power under section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the ID Act') has sanctioned filing criminal complaint against the petitioners for the alleged breach of award dated 7.8.2009 passed in case No. 8/98 I.D.Act Reference (Annexure 'C') by the Labour Court, Khandwa punishable under section 29 of the ID Act on an application filed by the respondent No. 2/workman (for short, 'the workman').
In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners; Pfizer Limited and its Managing Director (for short, the petitioner-company) seek to challenge the legality, validity and propriety of the order impugned dated 19.4.2018 (Annexure 'A').
2. Before adverting to the contentions of both the parties, it is expedient to refer to relevant facts as adumbrated in the pleadings of the parties.
3. Petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act with registered office as mentioned in the cause title and engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing, preparing and distributing and dealing in pharmaceutical, medical, healthcare and allied fields. Petitioner No. 2 is Managing Director of the company.
4. The workman an employee of Wyeth Limited had raised an industrial dispute after termination of employment. Upon failure of conciliation, the appropriate government had referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Khandwa registered as case No. 8/98 I.D.Act Reference for adjudication. Vide award dated 7.8.2009, the labour Court ordered for reinstatement of the workman without backwages. Wyeth Limited challenged the aforesaid award in W.P. No. 11770/2009 at Principal Seat, Jabalpur on 10.11.2009 (Annexure 'D').
Thereafter, Company Scheme Petition No. 520 of 2014 was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Scheme of Amalgamation for merger of Wyeth Limited (transferor company) with the petitioner No. 1 - company (transferee company). The merger was sanctioned by the Court on 31.10.2014 (Annexure 'E').
W.P. No. 11770/2009 filed by Wyeth Limited (for short, 'the erstwhile company') was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 17.7.2015 (Annexure 'F').
Petitioner-company was not aware of pendency of the aforesaid writ petition at Principal Seat, Jabalpur. It is submitted that the employees who were in charge of the present case and working with the legal department of erstwhile company had left the service of the petitioner-company. After shifting of the registered office, the petitioner-company came to know about the aforesaid writ petition while reviewing the litigations pending by and against the erstwhile company. Thereafter, immediately took steps and filed M.C.C. No. 1862 of 2016 seeking restoration of aforesaid writ petition (supra) on 25.7.2016 (Annexure 'G'). The notice was issued to the workman vide order dated 24.10.2016 (Annexure 'H') and he was served with the notice on 5.12.2016 and the server report of acknowledgment was received on 12.12.2016. Thereafter, through an advocate reply to the said application was filed by the workman on 23.3.2017 (Annexure 'I').
During pendency of restoration proceedings, the workman was paid wages in compliance of section 17B of the ID Act and the details of payments made from August, 2012 to March, 2016 are placed on record (Annexure 'J').
The petitioner-company in the process of change in the functioning of the company has introduced accounts software called SAP system for accounting process and mechanism which also includes payments more efficient. One of the requirements of the SAP system was creation of vendor code to enable payments to third parties. Since, earlier the workman was being paid wages under section 17B of the ID Act through demand drafts, the petitioner-company did not have relevant details to prepare vendor code of the workman to make payment through SAP system. Under the circumstances, a letter was written to the
