AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a Writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the State
Government to initiate criminal action against the second respondent for the violation and breach of statutory settlement entered u/s 12(3) of The
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and is affiliated to the State Transport
Employees Federation. The Federation is affiliated to CITU. The Federation, as a Central Union, signed various wage settlements u/s 12(3) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, with all the state owned transport Corporations, including the second respondent.
The case of the petitioner is that the respondents are guilty of the breach of statutory settlement between the workmen and the management as
they have failed to pay wages as agreed to under the settlement.
The petitioner, being aggrieved by the violation committed by the second respondent, invoked Section 29 of Industrial Disputes Act 1947,
which reads as under:
Penalty for breach of settlement or award:
Any person who commits a breach of any terms 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 fines 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.
The case of the petitioner is that criminal prosecution u/s 29 can be initiated only by the State Government through authorised person in view of
Section 34 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which reads as under:
Cognizance of offence:
(1) No Court shall take 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.
(2) No Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent has opposed the petition by contending that the petitioner has a remedy to
enforce the settlement under Sec. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by claiming the determined amount payable to the workmen.
The defence of the respondents cannot be accepted. The respondents cannot be allowed to violate the statutory settlement entered into between
the parties. The pleaded facts clearly shows that the State Government has failed to perform its statutory function under Sec. 34 of the Industrial
Disputes Act in not initiating the proceedings against the second respondent for violating the statutory settlement, inspite of the fact that the request
for initiating the criminal proceedings was made by the petitioner as far back on 8.6.2009. It is proved that the petitioner has a legal right u/s 29 to
prosecute the respondent and the respondent No. 1 has also statutory obligation to file complaint u/s 34 of Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner
has already raised a demand by filing complaint. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to take a decision on
the request of the petitioner for initiating proceedings against the second respondent under Sec. 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act in accordance
with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Consequently, connected MP is closed.
No costs.