Crl.M.C.No.4899-01/2006 Page 1 of 12

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment Reserved On: 16^th September, 2011

Judgment Delivered On: 28^th September, 2011

+

CRL.M.C.4899-4901/2006

M/S.JAGATJIT INDUSTRIES LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through: Ms.Simar Narula, Advocate

versus

LABOUR OFFICER & ANR.

.....Respondents

Through: Ms.Asha Jain, Advocate with

Mr.Mukesh Jain and Ms.Shivika Jain,

Advocates for R-3 to R-5

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

1.Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed

to see the judgment?

2.To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the

Digest?

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1.

An interesting issue pertaining to interpretation of

Section 19 and 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 arises

for consideration in the instant petition which lays a

challenge to the order dated 11.11.2005 under which the

petitioners have been summoned in a complaint filed by the

Labour Officer (South) Government of NCT Delhi alleging

that

Labour

Court

Award

in

ID

No.357/1995

dated

28.11.2001 requiring reinstatement of 3 workmen has not

been implemented qua 2 of them and thus an offence

2011:DHC:5045

Crl.M.C.No.4899-01/2006 Page 2 of 12

stands committed as per Section 29 of the ID Act 1947. The

complaint has been filed on 11.5.2005.

2.

Section 29 of the ID Act 1947 reads as under:-

“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.”

3.

Section 19 of the ID Act 1947 which specifies the

period of operation of settlements and awards reads as

under:-

“19. Period of operation of settlements and

awards.-

(1)

A settlement shall come into operation on

such date as is agreed upon by the parties to the

dispute, and if no date is agreed upon, on the date

on which the memorandum of the settlement is

signed by the parties to the dispute.

(2)

Such settlement shall be binding for such

period as is agreed upon by the parties, and if no

such period is agreed upon, for a period of six

months from the date on which the memorandum

of settlement is signed by the parties to the

dispute, and shall continue to be binding on the

2011:DHC:5045

Crl.M.C.No.4899-01/2006 Page 3 of 12

parties after the expiry of the period aforesaid,

until the expiry of two months from the date on

which a notice in writing of an intention to

terminate the settlement is given by one of the

parties to the other party or parties to the

settlement.

(3)

An award shall, subject to the provisions of

this section, remain in operation for a period of

one year from the date on which the award

becomes enforceable under section 17A.

Provided that the appropriate Government may

reduce the said period and fix such period as it

thinks fit:

Provided further that the appropriate Government

may, before the expiry of the said period, extend

the period of operation by any period not

exceeding one year at a time as it thinks fit so,

however, that the total period of operation of any

awar