AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Bhangale, J.—Heard. Admit. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. By this application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant prays for to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.9.2009 in Criminal (ULPA) No. 37 of2009 whereby Judge, 4th Labour Court, Nagpur was pleased to issue process u/s 48(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
It appears that Criminal (ULP) No. 609 of 1998before the Labour Court against (1) Indian Express Newspapers(Bom) Limited, Jagat Apartment, Ravi Nagar Square, through its Branch Manager and (2) Indian Express Newspapers (Bom) Limited, Express Tower, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021, through its General Manager seeking relief of reinstatement with continuity in service and full back-wages. That Complaint(ULP) was partly allowed by the Judge, 4th Labour Court, Nagpur vide judgment and order dated 4th February 2006 whereby termination of complainant/Respondent No. 1 herein was held illegal and it was accordingly set aside. Consequently, the Respondents therein were directed to reinstate the complainant in service on his former post with continuity of service from2.8.1996 and they were also directed to pay 50% of the back wages to the complainant from 22.8.2000 to 11.9.2003. Since the judgment & order of the 4th Labour Court dated 4.2.2006was not complied, present Respondent No. 1 filed Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 37 of 2009 u/s 48 of the Act of1971 against present Respondent No. 2 and present applicant Viveck Goenka, Managing Director/President of the Indian Express Newspapers (Bom) Limited, Mumbai. By impugned order, the Judge, 4th Labour Court, Nagpur issued process against the present applicant and Respondent No. 2.
Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is Chairman & Managing Director of the Indian Express Limited of The Indian Express Limited, which is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and resides and has his office at Mumbai. According to him, the Indian Express Limited are proprietors and publishers of various newspapers and magazines and has its branches all over India. It is submitted that Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Semi Clerk for fixed duration in the Nagpur Branch of the then Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Limited. Feeling aggrieved by his termination with effect from 2nd August 1996 Respondent No. 1 filed Complaint (ULP) No. 609 of1998 u/s 28 of the Act of 1971. Learned Counsel contends that in that Complaint (ULP), present applicant wasn''t impleaded as party. Thus, the order which was passed incompliant (ULP) No. 609 of 1998 is not binding upon the applicant since he was not party to the said complaint. Moreover, the order which was passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 609 of 1998 was not duly served on the applicant nor he was informed about the passing of said order. Under these circumstances, it is contended that the order of issuance of process against the applicant is liable to be quashed and set-aside. Even otherwise, it is contended that the Company has various departments and layers of officers looking after the day-to-day affairs of the concerned departments. The Company viz. Indian Express Limited publishes several newspapers and publications from diverse centers across the country. The said Company has its registered office at Mumbai and Corporate Head Office at New Delhi. It also has branch offices in various cities including the city of Nagpur. The appointment, selection and terms and conditions of service of various categories of the employees are done through the Personnel and Human Resource Department of the Company. The Personnel and Human Resource Department of the Company is headed by the Corporate Head Talent Engagement. There are also various layers of officers under the Corporate Head such as Deputy General Manager, Human Resources Regional Managers, Senior Manager (Employees Relations) etc. It is also submitted that the notice dated 12.3.2009 sent through lawyer by the complainant (Respondent No. 1) was addressed to "Indian Express News Paper (Mom) Limited, Nagpur" and "Indian Express Newspaper (Mom) Limited, Mumbai, through its Managing Director". It is, therefore, submitted that there was no Company of such nomenclature to whom the notice dated 12.3.2003 was addressed. For all these reasons, it is submitted that the Labour Court, Nagpur was in error in issuing the process against the present applicant. The order is without application of mind and without any material allegations against the applicant. There is no prima facie case against the applicant so as to sumonhim as accused in Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 37 of 2009. Therefore, the applicant has prayed for to quash and set aside the impugned order.
Opposing the application, although Respondent No. 1did not file any reply, it is submitted that the applications not maintainable u/s 482 Cr. P. C. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has relied upon a ruling in the case of V.K. Jain and Others Vs. Pratap V. Padode and Another, wherein it is held that the power of High Court u/s 482 Cr. P.C. Should not be resorted to if there is specific provision in the Code for the redress of grievance of the aggrieved party. According to learned Counsel, remedy by way of revision u/s 397 Cr. P. C. was available to the applicant.
The view taken by this Court in V.K. Jain''s case(supra) seems no longer a good law, because the Apex Court in Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 370 has held that the High Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India or u/s 482 Cr. P. C. and existence of alternate remedy was not a complete bar for entertaining such an application. The Apex Court has observed that inherent jurisdiction of the high Court u/s 482 Cr. P. C. though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debitojustitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. Therefore, the argument that remedy u/s 482 Cr. P. C. is not available to the applicant, cannot be accepted.
On behalf of the applicant, reference is made to a ruling in Dipak Ray and Ors. v. Mafatlal Engineering Employees Union and Ors. reported in 1995 I CLR 200 to canvass proposition that when the applicant was not a party to the original complaint, he cannot be made liable in subsequent proceedings in which the criminal jurisdiction of the Labour Court to try offences under the Act of 1971 is sought to be invoked. Reference is also made to the ruling in ITDC and Ors. v. PO, 9th Labour Court and anr reported in 2009 (5) Mh.L.J. 493 in which this Court has held that the order of issuance of summons could be challenged by filing petition under Articles 226 and 227 and existence of alternate remedy was not a complete bar for entertaining such an application. It is further held in ITDC''s case (supra) that there has to be averments made in the complaint regarding breach of order by the accused against whom process is sought to be issued. It is further held that it is settled position of law that unless the interim orders are served personally, no action for contempt can be initiated against such person who was not duly served. It cannot be argued that on account of averments made by party in a complaint, it would be implied that the party had been served with the interim order. It is further submitted that the law laid down by this Court in the case of M.R. Patil v. Member, Industrial Court and anr reported in 1996 II CLR 450 that Section 48(1) is not restricted to the person who is a party in the original complaint and takes into its fold any person who fails to comply with any order of the Court, has been set aside by the Apex Court in Madhav Ram krishna and ors v. State of Maharashtra and ors reported in 1998 II CLR 1188 wherein it is held as under:
The net result is, therefore, that the complaint of breach can be filed against the person to whom the order is served. Unless it is shown that the persons who allegedly committed breach of an order were served with the order and whether they are made aware of the order and, therefore, are said to be made answerable for the willful disobedience thereof, there cannot be a complaint on the basis of deeming fictions which is sought to be raised on the basis of they being directors.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the settled legal position, since applicant Viveck Goenka was not made party to the original complaint (ULP) No. 609 of 1998; order passed in the original proceedings was not duly served upon him and legal notice dated 12.3.2009 was also wrongly addressed, process could not have been issued against him. Hence, application is allowed. Order of issuance of process dated 11.9.2009 passed by the Judge, 4th Labour Court, Nagpur in Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 37 of 2009 is hereby quashed and set aside only as against the applicant Viveck Goenka.