Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 84 (CAL)

DIBYENDU NATH ROY v. STATE OF W. B

2002-02-11

AMIT TALUKDAR

body2002
AMIT TALUKDAR, J. ( 1 ) IN view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed in this Application the said can be disposed of even at this stage without hearing the opposite parties. ( 2 ) THIS Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner hereinabove seeking to challenge an order dated 10. 10. 200 1 passed by the learned chief Metropolitan Magistrate. calcutta in case No. C-5651 of 2000. While impugning the said order the petitioners lawyer submitted that without hearing him in whose. favour the award was passed and he being the most affected party the learned chief Metropolitan Magistrate was entirely wrong in dismissing the petition. It was further submitted that at the very outset the learned chief Metropolitan Magistrate. calcutta had gone into unnecessary details while adjudicating on the prayer of the complainant for issuance of process and that the entire exercise of the learned chief Metropolitan Magistrate was a result of non-application of mind and more so. the offence was continuing in nature and as such it was not incumbent upon the learned chief Metropolitan Magistrate to dismiss the petition under Section 473 of the code of criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the said codett) in such a fashion. ( 3 ) I find that the order impugned has to be setaside for reasons more than one. I am in agreement with Shri Sengupta. learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner being the most affected party having suffered injury on account of the acts of the accused persons and an award obtained by him which was sought to be enforced through the legal machinery as contemplated under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (for short the said Act) by the respondent No. 7 the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ought to have given an audience to the petitioner himself before rushing to the conclusion. This is ipso facto bad by itself. ( 4 ) THE said Act is definitely a piece of social welfare legislation enacted for the purpose of amelioration of the plight of employees who have been wronged in the hands of their employers. The Court while adjudicating such type of cases should try to shun as far as practicable technical niceties which would ultimately jeopardise the volatile interest of the mute and weaker section of the Society. The Court while adjudicating such type of cases should try to shun as far as practicable technical niceties which would ultimately jeopardise the volatile interest of the mute and weaker section of the Society. ( 5 ) I find that in the petition of complaint the offence alleged against the accused persons were for violation of Section 29 read with Section 32 of the said Act. There was an averment for excluding the period for obtaining sanction under Section 470 (3) of the said Code and as the offence was still continuing not being barred by limitation under clause (b) of Section 468 of the said Code. Section 29 of the said Act reads as: 29. Penalty for breach of settlement or award Any person who commits a breach of any term of any settlement or award which is binding on him under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine or with both and where the breach is a continuing one. with a further fine which may extend to two hundred rupees for every day during which the breach continues after the conviction for the first and the Court trying the offence if it finds the offender, may direct that the whole or any part of the fine realised from him shall be paid, by way of compensation to any person who in its opinion has been injured by such breach. ( 6 ) IT has also been clearly averred in the body of the petition of complaint that the offence committed by the accused persons in the present case is still continuing If such averment is read in juxtaposition with the recitals of Section 29 of this said ACt could it be said that the case was barred by limitation? It is worth while to note that the legislatures in their wisdom had enacted Sections 473 and 470 in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 which was absent in the earlier Code (in the Old Code of 1898) ; so was also the provisions of Section 468. It is worth while to note that the legislatures in their wisdom had enacted Sections 473 and 470 in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 which was absent in the earlier Code (in the Old Code of 1898) ; so was also the provisions of Section 468. The restriction in putting a bar of limitation on prosecution was to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time as filing vexatious and belated prosecutions long after the date of offence operated contrary to the concept of a fair procedure and militated against the sublime spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as has been held by the Supreme Court in (1) State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh. ( 7 ) BUT. what is the crying need of the hour before a Court which is approached with a relief for safeguarding the interest of the hapless and the less fortunate and socially wronged segments of the Society who have been given the euphemistic terminology weaker section of the Society. ( 8 ) PERHAPS it is the interest of the Justice and Justice alone and nothing else but the clarion call of Justice for which the Courts should have prime audience. ( 9 ) EVEN if the delay may not be satisfactorily explained (here of course it is not the case) the Court is not incompetent to override the bar of limitation if the interest of Justice necessitates the same and the issue of limitation cannot operate as a blanket bar to the proceeding at the threshold if it is required in the paramount interest of Justice. It is the incumbent duty of those engaged in the Justice Delivery System particularly at the front level it has to be kept in mind the object and purpose of the Act T1which is intended to be achieved by constituting the particular act as an offence infraction of which has been alleged and particularly where it ensures the welfare of workers. the Court should be liberal enough in a controversy as to whether the offence is continuing or non-continuing to live up to the legislative intent and hold to be a continuing offence as has been held by the Suireme Court in the case of (2 Bhaciirath Kanoria v. State of M. P. ( 10 ) HERE is a workman having been wronged at the hands of his employers was indirectly equally wronged in absentia at the hands of the learned Court below. It is incumbent duty for me sitting in this Majestic Portal of Justice to at least set at right the wrong suffered by the hapless petitioner. Even if this Court does not possess the power to rub thetears from the eyes of such an unfortunate person can definitely set at right the wrong occasioned. ( 11 ) IT is with this noble mission in mind and being guided by the position as emanating from the discussion held in the foregoing Paragraph. , 1 venture to set aside the order impugned in Case No. C-5651 of 2000 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Calcutta. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Calcutta is now requested to act within the mandate of Section 200 of the said Code and proceed within the steps known to law from the provisions of Section 200 of the said Code onwards and conclude the entire proceeding definitely within a stipulated period of two months from the date of communication of this order keeping in mind that delay in disposal of the proceeding would result in multiplying to the plight of the unfortunate petitioner. ( 12 ) FOR the purpose of utmost despatch, it is also impressed upon the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Calcutta that he will retain the proceeding to his own File and shall not transfer it to any other learned Metropolitan Magistrate under his Magistracy. ( 13 ) THIS revisional application is allowed. ( 14 ) NO order as to costs. As prayed for department is directed to give a certified copy of this order within one week positively. Revision allowed.