Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 26 (BOM)

Sahney Kirkwood (Private), Ltd. v. S. V. Bhagwat

2000-01-19

S.S.PARKAR

body2000
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed for quashing Case No. 3456 of 1987 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C. First Class, Thane, filed by Respondent No. 1 under Ss. 25 N and Q of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the allegation that without the requisite prior permission of the appropriate Government the petitioners has retrenched the workmen. 2. Few facts material for the disposal of this petition are that on 15.9.84 the petitioners retrenched 50 workers with immediate effect. The same was brought to the notice or the Deputy Commissioner or Labour, Thane, by the union. A show-cause notice was issued to the management by letter, dated 7 February 1986, and thereafter the present complaint came to the filed in the Magistrate's Court on 23 rd September, 1987. A copy of the complaint is annexed as Exhibit A to this petition which is, dated 23 September 1987. On the said complaint process was issued by the Magistrate against the management and, therefore, the present petition is filed for quashing the process and the complaint filed in the Magistrate's Court. Applicants contend that the criminal proceeding was barred by limitation under S. 468(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code as the complaint was filed beyond a period of one year of limitation. As per the allegations in the complaint the offence committed by the applicants is that they had retrenched the workers without prior permission of the appropriate Government as laid down in S. 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act which is punishable under S. 25-Q of the said Act. Under the latter provision such offence is punishable with imprisonment for a maximum period of an imprisonment of one month or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000 or with both. Complaint in respect of an offence which is punishable up to maximum of one month imprisonment has to be filed within a period of one year either from the date of the offence or from the date the complainant comes to know about it under S. 469 of the Cr.P.C. The offence in the instant case was committed on 17 September 1984 on which date the complainant had come to know about the same through the union of workers. Though the complainant came to know about the alleged commission of offence on 17 September 1984 a show-cause notice was addressed to the Company for the first time on 7 February 1986 and thereafter the present complaint was filed on 23 September, 1987 which is clearly barred by limitation under S. 469 of the Cr.P.C. That bar of limitation under the provision of the Cr.P.C. is applicable to the criminal prosecutions lodged under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act is not in issue as there are several judgments of the Courts on the point. Sri Shirodkar cited the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ajit Maneklal Choksi [1979 L. & I.C. 59]. 3. As the prosecution lodged against the petitioner is barred by period of limitation as stated above, the complaint being Case No. 3456 of 1987 filed against the applicants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thane, is liable to be quashed. 4. In the result the petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Cl. B of the petition. Petition Allowed.