Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 375 (JHR)

Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand

2012-03-15

R.R.PRASAD

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court.-Heard the parties. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of I.D. Case No. 321 of 2001 including the order dated 11.4.2001 passed by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been taken against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an industrial dispute was raised by the workman-Bhagirath' Pandey whereupon a reference was made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dharbad. Upon adjudication, an award was pass8d in favour of the workman. Thereupon, an application seems to have been tiled by the concerned workman before the Industrial Tribunal on account of non-implementation of the award. On filing of such application, a notice was issued to the petitioners who immediately replied that against the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioners had preferred a writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No. 4350 of 2000 which got dismissed on 3.1.2001 and under the situation, specific statement was made that the petitioners would be implementing the award. In spite of that, the Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act which is under challenge. 4. From perusal of the record, it does appear that when the notice was issued to the petitioners about non-implementation of award, a show-cause was submitted immediately thereafter that the award could not be implemented as the petitioners had preferred a writ application though it has been dismissed. In that situation, specific statement was made that the award shall be implemented. 5. Further it has been stated that subsequently settlement arrived at in between the petitioners and the concerned workman whereby all back wages, which were due, were paid to him and he has also been reinstated and thus, there appears to be delay in implementing the award but from the statement made in the show-cause, it does appear that the petitioners never intended not to implement the award and thereby the petitioners cannot be said to have committed offence punishable under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act and thereby the court below appears to have committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners. 6. 6. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding, including the order dated 11.4.2001 passed by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in I.O. Case No. 321 of 2001 under which cognizance of the offence has been taken against the petitioners under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, is hereby quashed. 7. In the result, this application is allowed.