JUDGMENT 1. 1. This application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is directed against an order dated 10.9.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Criminal Appeal No. 4/96 whereby the order passed by the learned Special Judge (Economic Offences) Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated 27.3.1996 was confirmed and the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed and he has been directed to deliver possession of the house No. C-1, NBC Colony, Khatipura Road, Jaipur, to the complainant company i.e. The National Engineering Industries Limited, within a period of 15 days as otherwise he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The contention, inter alia, raised by the petitioner is that on 24.3.1989 he submitted his conditional resignation from service to the respondent but before its acceptance, on a re-thinking on 5.8.1989 he submitted an application for withdrawal of his letter of resignation which till that date was not accepted. It was only on 6.2.1990 that the Factory Manager of the respondent company accepted the letter of resignation with effect from 31.1.1990 and it was his further contention that since before the acceptance of his letter of resignation it was withdrawn by him, there could be no occasion for the company to accept his resignation letter which was kept pending for all these months. The petitioner thereafter filed an application before the authorised officer of the Labour Department, Government of Rajasthan, and since there was a failure report sent by the Conciliation Officer to the Labour Department, ultimately vide order dated 21.8.1990 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The main controversy which has been sent for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by way of a reference to the Labour Court is to the effect as to whether the acceptance of the resignation letter submitted by the petitioner in March 1989 with effect from 31.1.1990, was justified and legal and if not to what relief the petitioner is entitled to. It is the further contention of the petitioner that since the dispute is pending before the Labour Court and the Labour Court is seized with the matter, the complainant company would not have launched a prosecution under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, against the petitioner in the manner it did There were very many instances in respect of retired employees whose quarters are allowed to be continued by such retired employees or their heirs or legal representatives. But then, so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has been singled out to be proceeded under Section 630 of the aforesaid Act. 3. It is more or less a settled law that a proceeding under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 can be launched against an employee whose services have been determined irrespective of the fact that the self same question of his dismissal or removal from service has already been referred for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and it is pending decision before the relevant Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. It was observed by the Judicial decisions that different issues might be involved in the termination of an employment and in wrongful withholding of the property belonging to the employer or the company and pendency of a proceeding challenging the order of dismissal, can (sic ?) operate as a bar for the institution of a criminal proceeding under Section 630 of the aforesaid Act. The Madras High Court has taken this view in P.V. George v. Jayems Engineering Co. (P.) Ltd., (1990) 2 Com.L.J. 62 (Mad.) . and the Bombay High Court has also taken the identical view in Chandragupta Gupta v. Padmanabha Subramani (1989) 65 Com. Cases 190 (Bom.) . A Dispute raised under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, will not justify stay of the proceedings under Section 630 of the Companies Act and once a final judgment is arrived at, it cannot be stayed merely because an adjudicatory proceeding is pending either before the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court. Disputes of a civil nature cannot injunct a criminal court from making an appropriate determination in a proceeding under Section 630 of the Companies Act. Disputes of a civil nature cannot injunct a criminal court from making an appropriate determination in a proceeding under Section 630 of the Companies Act. In Amrit Lal Chum v. Devoprasad Dutta Roy and others 1988 (1) Crimes 596 , a Bench of three judges of the Supreme Court held that the term 'officer or employee' must be interpreted to mean not only the present officers and employees of a company, but albo to include the past officers and employees of the company and wrongfully withholding of the property of the company after termination of the employment, is an offence under Section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act. As observed by the Supreme Court in Baldev Krishna Sahi v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. & another (1987) 4 SCC 361 , the provisions of Section 630 of the Companies Act plainly makes it an offence if an officer or the employee of a company who was permitted to use the property of the company during his employment, wrongfully retains or occupies the same after his termination of employment. It is the wrongful withholding of such property, meaning the property of the company after termination of the employment, which is an offence under Section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act and it was followed by the Supreme Court consistently that this interpretation in Baldev Krishna Sahi's case (ibid), is the only interpretation possible and there is no scope to contend that the provisions of Section 630 of the Companies Act applied only to the existing officers and employees and not in respect of those whose employment has already been terminated. Whether or not the employment has rightfully been terminated, may be decided by the appropriate civil Court or by the industrial disputes adjudicating Authority, but depending upon the finality of such adjudicatory mechanism the proceedings under Section 630 of the Companies Act may not be stalled. 4. For ends of justice, I would however modify the sentence to a fine of Rs. 500/- only and set aside the term of simple imprisonment of one year in default as directed by the Courts below on condition that the petitioner vacates the premises within one month from this date.Petition partly allowed. *******