J U D G M E N T

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. Leave granted.

FACTS

2. By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Cr. PC”). The petition was filed to quash a complaint filed in a criminal Court by the second respondent alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 29 read with Sections 32 and 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the ID Act”). Cognizance was taken of the alleged offence on the said complaint. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the High Court has dismissed the petition without considering the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHISmH KeONrDLiE ts of the challenge to the complaint.

Date: 2024.08.09 Reason:

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that Section 29 of the ID Act is attracted when there is a breach of any settlement or award binding on the accused under the provisions of the ID Act. He submitted that there is no averment in the complaint about the breach of any particular settlement or award. He further submitted that under Section 34(1) of the ID Act, cognizance of any offence punishable under the ID Act can be taken based only on a complaint made by or under the authority of the appropriate Government. He submitted that no private person can be authorised under Section 34(1) of the ID Act to file a complaint. He pointed out that the order under Section 34 of the ID Act does not refer to any violation of Section 29 at all, and it only refers to the breach of an affidavit and the provisions of Section 9A of the ID Act.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that in paragraph 8 of the complaint, it is specifically alleged that an agreement was incorporated in the joint affidavit of the parties filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 9th December 2015 and what is alleged is the violation of the said agreement. He submitted that what is stated in the affidavit is an agreement and, therefore, what was alleged was the violation of the agreement incorporated in the joint affidavit of the parties.

He further submitted that the High Court dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC should be very slow in interfering with the order of the issue of process.

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS

5. Sections 29 and 34 of the ID Act are material which read thus:

“29. Penalty for breach of settlement or award.- Any person who commits a breach of any term of any settlement or award, which is binding on him under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both and where the breach is a continuing one, with a further fine which may extend to two hundred rupees for every day during which the breach continues after the conviction for the first and the Court trying the offence, if it fines the offender, may direct that the whole or any part of the fine realised from him shall be paid by way of compensation, to any person who, in its opinion, has been injured by such breach.”

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

“34. Cognizance of offences- (1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, or of the abetment of any such offence, save on complaint made by or under the authority of the appropriate Government.

(2) No Court inferior to that of 1[a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.”

(underlines supplied)

6. Section 29 is applicable when any person commits a breach of any term of any settlement or award binding on him under the ID Act. Therefore, in the complaint alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 29 of the ID Act, there must be a specific averment regarding the existence of a settlement or award binding on the accused under the ID Act and how the same has been breached. Set