Chaitanya Sahoo vs S.N. Tripathy

J. Das, J.—This revision arises out of the order dated 24-9-1985 passed by Sri J.M. Panda Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Sadar, Cuttack, in 2(c)CC No. 111 of 1985 taking cognisance of the offence u/s 2(ra) read with Section 25-T of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The complainant S.N. Tripathy, the Production Manager of Orissa Cotton Milts, Bhagatpur, Cuttack filed a complaint against the Petitioner allaying unfair labour practice. On the basis of the complaint petition cognisance was taken under S.C.C. 2(ra) and 25-T of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Petitioner (accused) raised objection that taking of cognisance is without Jurisdiction. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, however, held that since he has taken the cognisance either rightly of wrongly it is not open to him to set aside the order. In this circumstance, the Petitioner has filed this criminal revision.

The learned advocate for the Petitioner argues that the complaint has not been filed by the statutory authority as required u/s 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act and hence the impugned order is vitiated.

Section 34 of the Act runs as follows:

34(1) No Court shall take cognisance of any offence punishable under this Act of the abatement of any such offence save, on complaint made by or under the authority of the appropriate Government.

x x x x.

Thus, according to the above Section complaint must be filed either by or under the authority of the appropriate Government.

In this case appropriate Government is the State Government as per Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

u/s 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act appropriate Government has been authorised to delegate its powers to other authorities by notification in the official Gazette.

Vide Notification No. 822/1(i)/171/64-Lab. dated 25th January 1964, the labour Commissioner, Orissa and all Assistant labour Commissioners have been authorised to file complaint under the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, if the complaint is filed either of the Labour Commissioner or Asst. Labour Commissioner and cognisance is taken on such complaint, then taking of cognisance is in accordance with law. In this case the complaint has been filed by the Production Manager, Orissa Cotten Mills, Sri S.N. Tripathy who is not competent to file the complaint u/s 34 of the Act. Hence, the impugned order is vitiated and the same must be quashed.

In the result, the criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 24-9-1935 is quashed.

Crl. revision allowed.