Bokaro Steel Plant and Others vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

D.K. Sinha, J.—The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in I.D. Case No. 1 of 2007 including the order dated 22.06.2007 whereby and whereunder the C.J.M., Bokaro had taken the cognizance of the offence u/s 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 now pending in the Court of Shri Subhash, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.

The prosecution story in short was that the Incharge Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bokaro O.P. No. 2 herein had initiated prosecution against the petitioners alleging inter alia that the petitioners had not implemented the award dated 10.1.1994 passed in Reference Case No. 12 of 1987 and thereby violated the provisions of Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act punishable u/s 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Mr. Mazumdar, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the direction as well as the award of the Labour Court was duly implemented by the management of Bokaro Steel Limited and whereby differential amount including the arrears were paid to the concerned workman Ram Kishore Prasad (O.P. No. 3) vide office order dated 24.06.1994 issued by the Bokaro Steel Plant under Steel Authority of India Limited (Annexure-2).

The learned Counsel pointed out that the petitioners from time to time satisfied the queries of the OP. No. 2 (Deputy Labour Commissioner) by sending informations through letters on 4 08 2000, 14.03.2003, 22.04.2004 & 11.06.2005 ( Annexure-3 series) and that it would be further evident from the cognizance order dated 22.06.2007, passed by the C.J.M. that it was taken u/s 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was not a penal section of the Act against the petitioners M/s Bokaro Steel Plant, Surendra Singh and Shivdut Jha which reflected non-application of the judicial mind by the learned C.J.M., Bokaro Steel City, while taking cognizance of the offence; which resulted into miscarriage of justice. Therefore, on the merit as well as on the point of law the prosecution of the petitioners is not sustainable which is liable to be quashed.

It is evidently clear from the impugned order of cognizance dated 22.06.2007 passed by the C.J.M., Bokaro in I.D. Case No. 1 of 2007 that he had taken the cognizance u/s 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and I find substance in the argument that Section 18(3) of the Act is not a penal Section.

Section 18(3) speaks;- A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Act or an arbitration award in a case where a notification has been issued under sub-section (3-A) of Section 10-A or an award of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal which has become enforceable shall be binding on all parties to the industrial dispute.

Section 18(3) makes it clear that an award of the Labour Court or the Tribunal is binding on all parties to the dispute. Though an individual worker may not be a party to such dispute, when he is represented by his Union, he would be deemed to be a party to the dispute M.V. Kuriakose Vs. The State of Kerala and Others, . The provision of law ipso facto binds the parties to the Industrial Disputes and its contravention is punishable u/s 29 of the I.D. Act, 1947 which speaks:

Penalty for breach of settlement or award.- Any person who commits a breach of any terms 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 realized from him shall be paid, by way of compensation, to any person who, in its opinion, has been injured by such breach.

Under the facts and circumstances, I find that the C.J.M., Bokaro Steel City without application of judicial mind and in mechanical manner took the cognizance of the offence u/s 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the petitioners herein M/s Bokaro Steel Plant, Surendra Singh & Shivdut Jha in a slip shod manner which is unsustainable under law. I further find from the annexures that petitioners have, from time to time, satisfied the queries of the O.P. No. 2 and without going through the annexures a complaint was filed against the petitioners.

However, if at all any miscalculation is found in the calculation of the arrears of the salary of the O.P. No. 3 (Ram Kishore Prasad) on the basis of the award of the Labour Court, the same shall be rectified within six weeks of this order by the authorities of the Bokaro Steel Plant including the petitioners herein.

With this observation, the criminal prosecution of the petitioners in I.D. Case No. 1 of 2007 pending before Shri Subhash, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro is quashed with the caution to the C.J.M., Bokaro to be careful in future while taking cognizance of the offence. Accordingly, this Cr. Misc. Petition is allowed.