AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prashant Kumar, J.—This is an application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 15.7.2002 passed by CJM, Dhanbad in connection with I.D. Case No. 240 of 2002 whereby and whereunder he took cognizance of the offence u/s 29/32 of the I.D. Act.
It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that petitioner'' No. 1 is the Chairman of M/s. SAIL whereas petitioner No. 2 and 3 are the Executive Director of IISCO sitting at the Headquarter of IISCO at Burdwan It is submitted that petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have no knowledge regarding the tripartite settlement arrived between the parties and therefore they are not liable to be punished taking recourse of Section 32 of the I.D. Act.
On the other hand, Sri Singh learned Counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2, submits that so far petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned they have knowledge about the tripartite settlement, because Annexure- 6 shows that they have participated in the conciliation proceeding. It is further submitted that since offence is committed by Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. (Hereinafter referred as ''IISCO''), therefore as per Section 32 of the I.D. Act all the Directors, Managers, Secretaries and other officers, who are concerned with the management of that company are deemed to have committed the offence, Accordingly the said order does not require any interference by this Court.
Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. Admittedly there is a tripartite settlement arrived in between the management of IISCO and the representative of employee on 6.9.2001. I further appears that the management is required to implement the said settlement by 30.11.2001. It further appears that when the settlement has not been implemented by 30.11.2001, workmen filed an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad for taking action against the management of IISCO. It then appear that thereafter show cause notice issued to the management and in reply to the said show cause notice it has been brought to the notice of the Regional Labour Commissioner that company has been referred to BIFR in the yea 1994 itself, therefore, it is not possible to implement the tripartite settlement. It then appears that RLC found that the reply given by the petitioners is not satisfactory, therefore, he filed present complaint petition. On the basis of that the impugned order has been passed.
Section 32 of I.D. Act runs as follows:
Offence by companies, etc. - Where a person committing an offence under this Act is a company, or other body corporate, or an association of persons ( whether incorporated or not), every director, manager, secretary, again or other officer or person concerned with the management thereof shall, unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or consent, be deemed to be guilty of such offence.
Thus from the plain reading of Section 32 of the I.D. Act, it appears that every director, manager, secretary, agent or other officer who are concerned with the management of the company are deemed to be held guilty for committing the offence u/s 29 of the I.D. Act. Admittedly, petitioner No. 1 Shri Arbind Kumar Pandey is Chairman of SAIL There is nothing in the complaint petition and/or in counter affidavit (filed by O.P. No. 2) to show that the Chairman SAIL is concerned with the management of IISCO. It is needless to say that SAIL and IISCO are registered separately as a company under the Companies Act. Under the aforesaid circumstance, for contravention of any provision of I.D. Act by the IISCO, the Officer and/or managemen; of SAIL can not be held liable for the offence under I.D. Act. In that view of the matter, I come to the conclusion that the order of cognizance, so far it relates to petitioner No. 1, is an abuse of process of court and therefore cannot be sustained.
So far petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, it appears that they are officers of IISCO. Annexure-6 shows that in the discussion with the union from the side of Management, Executive Director (M&C), General Manager, I/C ( C&J), DGM, ( P.&E) had participated. Annexure- 5 further shows that the copy of the same sent to Executive Director (I/C). Thus, it appears that petitioner No. 2 to 5 have knowledge about the tripartite settlement between the parties. It further appears that the settlement is with regard to implementation of pay revision in the colliery of IISCO, which require a decision from the higher authority. Under the said circumstance, in view of Section 32 of the I.D. Act, prima-facie petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 appears to have committed present offence. Thus, I find no illegality in the order of cognizance so far it relates to petitioner Nos. 2 to 5.
The judgment relied by Sri Ananda Sen reported in 2002(1) JCR 379 have no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. In that case there are materials to show that the BCCL issued circular that a particular officer of the area will implement the award and/or settlement arrived between the parties of that area, therefore, this Court held that the chairman of BCCL cannot be held liable for the same. In this case annexure-6 (a document of IISCO) reveals that petitioners participated in the discussion with the union of Chasnala. It further appears from annexure-5 that everything has been brought to the knowledge of petitioner No. 2. Thus, it appears that all the officers i.e. petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 have knowledge regarding the tripartite settlement. Therefore, aforesaid decision have of no help to the petitioners.
In view of discussion made above, this application is allowed so far it relates to petitioner No. 1. The criminal proceeding as well as order of cognizance dated 15.7.2002 passed by CJM, Dhanbad in I.P. Case No. 240 of 2002 against petitioner No. 1 Shri Arbind Kumar Pandey is hereby quashed. I find no illegality in the aforesaid criminal proceeding and impugned order so far it relates to petitioners No. 2 to 5, therefore their application is dismissed.