Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1973 DIGILAW 492 (MAD)

K. Pundarika Aithal v. Allampalli Venkataram

1973-09-28

M.SANTHOSH

body1973
Order.- The petitioner before this Court was the accused in C. C. No. 1114 of 1972 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 4th Court, Bangalore. He has been convicted for contravening section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. In this revision, the petitioner challenges the legality and correctness of the said conviction and sentence passed on him. 2. The charge against the petitioner was that he being the proprietor of Ideal Tiffin Rooms, Gavipura Guttahalli, Bangalore, did not implement the terms of the award passed by the Labour Court. It may be mentioned here that there is no dispute that the petitioner has not implemented the terms of the award. 3. Sri R.I. D’sa learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that the complaint filed against the petitioner is not a valid complaint under the law. In the instant case there is no dispute that the complaint has been filed by the President of the Hotel Mazdoor Sangh on the authorisation of the Labour Commissioner. The argument of the learned Counsel is that a complaint under section 34 of the Act can be filed either by the Government itself, or by any person authorised by the Government, Strong reliance is placed under section 39 of the Act which refers to the delegation of powers. It is contended that the Government has delegated powers of filing a complaint under section 39 of the Act to the Labour Commissioner. Under section 39, the Government is entitled to delegate its powers only to an authority subordinate to the State Government and not to anybody else. It is argued that in the instant case the Labour Commissioner could have filed the complaint himself but he could not authorise a private person to file a complaint because under section 39 of the Act even the Government can delegate its powers only to an authority subordinate to the State Government and not to any private person. Hence the argument is that section 34 of the Act is controlled by section 39 and as such the Labour Commissioner could not delegate powers of filing a complaint to a private person, but should have only authorised a person subordinate to the State Government to file a complaint. 4. Hence the argument is that section 34 of the Act is controlled by section 39 and as such the Labour Commissioner could not delegate powers of filing a complaint to a private person, but should have only authorised a person subordinate to the State Government to file a complaint. 4. On behalf of the complainant it has been contended that by the Government Notification No. LMA 545 LLE 66, dated 8th February, 1967 the Government under section 39 conferred its powers under section 34 on the Labour Commissioner. Under section 34 it is open to the Government either to file a complaint itself or authorise somebody else to file a complaint. In the instant case as the Government conferred its powers under section 34 of the Act on the Labour Commissioner, it is contended that it is open to him either to file a complaint himself or to authorise any person to file a complaint. Hence, it is argued, that there is no defect in the complaint filed in the instant case and the complainant is legally authorised to file the complaint. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in State of Kerala v. Mary C. Nidhiri Chacko1. 5. Sub-clause (1) of section 34 reads as follows: “No Court shall take a 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.” It is clear from the wordings of section 34 that the Government itself can file a complaint or authorise somebody else to file a complaint. 6. The Notification issued by the Government authorising the Labour Commissioner to act under section 34 reads as follows: “Labour and Municipal Administration Department, Bangalore. Notification No. LMA 545 LLE 66, dated 8th February, 1967. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 39 of the Industria Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947) the Government of Mysore, hereby directs that the power exercisable by it under sub-clause (1) of section 34 of the said Act in so far as the offences under section 29 are concerned shall be exercised also by the Commissioner of Labour in Mysore, Bangalore. By Order and in The Name of the Governor of Mysore, (Sd.) N.S. Ramachandrs, Secretary, Labour and Municipal Administration Dept.” It is clear from the said Notification that the Government has authorised the Labour Commissioner to exercise its powers under sub-clause (1) of section 34 of the Act. As already pointed out, the powers under section 34 consists of either filing the complaint himself or, authorising somebody else to file a complaint. In the instant case instead of filing the complaint himself, the Labour Commissioner has authorised somebody else to file a complaint. I see no force in the contention urged by Sri D’Sa on behalf of the petitioner. It is no doubt true under section 39 of the Act the Government can delegate its powers only to an officer or authority subordinate to the State Government. There is a valid delegation by the Government acting under section 39 of the Act of its powers under sub-clause (1) of section 34 to the Labour Commissioner. From the Notification issued, it is clear that the Labour Commissioner has been conferred powers by the Government under sub-clause (1) of section 34 of the Act, to file a complaint himself or to authorise some body else to file a complaint. 7. In State of Kerala v. Mary C. Nidhiri Chacko1, Raman Nayar, J., as he then was, has pointed out that the right conferred on the appropriate Government under section 34 (1) of the Act is a power. Section 34 (1) confers two powers on the Government, first to make a complaint and the second to authorise the making of a complaint or in other words to delegate its powers to make a complaint. At page 571, His Lordship has observed as follows: “The section, in fact, confers two powers on the appropriate Government, the first to make a complaint and the second to authorise the making of a complaint or, in the words of counsel for the defence, to delegate, in any particular case, its power to make a complaint. At page 571, His Lordship has observed as follows: “The section, in fact, confers two powers on the appropriate Government, the first to make a complaint and the second to authorise the making of a complaint or, in the words of counsel for the defence, to delegate, in any particular case, its power to make a complaint. Section 39 of the Act authorises the appropriate Government to delegate any power exercisable by it under the Act, and the delegation made by the State Government in favour of the Labour Commissioner under Exhibit P-5 is of both the powers under section 34 (1) in so far as offences under section 29 are concerned, namely, the power to make a complaint and the power to authorise somebody else to make a complaint. The delegation is a perfectly good delegation in terms of the section and since the section itself authorises the delegation of the power to authorise some one else to make a complaint, no question of a delegate being disentitled to make a further delegation arises.” 8. For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the opinion that there is no force in the contention urged by Sri D’sa. 9. In the result, there is no merit in this Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. S.V.S. Petition dismissed.