AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.H. Joshi, J.—The Petitioners are challenging the order of issue of process massed by the 3rd Labour Court, Nagpur in Criminal Complaint (ULPA) No. 35 of 2005.
The facts, which have led the filing of the Criminal Complaint, are that;
(a) The Maharashtra State Electricity Board, convened a meeting on 31.5.2005 at Mumbai, for which several representatives of different Unions were called to participate to discuss and negotiate in the revisional pay of employees and as its result, an agreement of pay revision is entered on 1.6.2005.
(b) The complainant Union was not invited to send its representatives, and according to the complainant, this act of the Board and its Officers amounts to wilful disobedience of the Orders passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur on 19.2.1990, and therefore, the Petitioners have become liable for being tried for the offence of disobedience.
Upon verification of the complaint, the 3rd Labour Court Nagpur, ordered issue of process u/s 46(1) of the MRTU & PULP Act. In this petition, this order of issue of process is under challenge.
The grounds put forward in support of the challenge can be briefly referred to as follows:
(a) The disobedience complained of is of Industrial Court, and the Labour Court is not competent to take cognizance.
(b) The authority to punish contemnor vests with the High Court and the Labour Court is not the competent authority to take cognizance u/s 48(1) read with 48(5),
(c) The Petitioners are the public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 81 of Electricity Supply Act, and therefore, in absence of previous sanction u/s 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure the Labour Court cannot take the cognizance.
(d) The complainant is not a recognized Union under the provisions of MRTU & PULP Act, and hence, no cognizance is required to be taken.
(e) On facts, there is no breach of order passed by the Industrial Court on 19.2.1990.
Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the following Judgments:
(1) Wazirkhan Sherkhan v. The Proprietor, M/s. Shrikrishna Gyanodaya Cottage Industries, Nagpur, 1979 Mh.L.J 325. (2) Anjani Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr. 2008 (66) AIC 72 (SC) : 2008 (61) ACC 982 (SC). (3) M.J. Lawankar and Ors. v. Anil Devidas Garad and others. 2007 (5) Mh.L.J 214 .
Learned Advocate for the Respondent in reply submitted that it is not disputed that the Petitioners are the public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, the illegalities committed by them in discharge of their duties, do not bring such illegal acts within the compass of official duty, no indulgence is called for and, therefore, trial can proceed unhindered.
Learned Advocate Mr. Marpakwar for the Respondent in support of his proposition relies on the observation contained in the unreported judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 380 of 2002, Sarfraj Khan and one v. Anath Shahanath Wadekar and one.
In view that the factual background is not disputed, it shall suffice to refer to the judgment of this Court in 1979 Mh.L.J Page No. 325, Sr. No. 1 in paragraph No. 5 foregoing insofar as the aspect of trialability of offence is concerned, the point that the offence u/s 48(1) is triable by the Labour Court is already concluded, and any further and detailed discussion on this point is not required.
Insofar as the aspect of Petitioners/accused being of public servant, is concerned, it shall suffice to refer by quotation the observations of Hon''ble Supreme Court contained in Anjani Kumar v. State of Bihar and another relied upon by the Petitioner, at Sr. No. 2 in para No. 5 foregoing which reads as follows;
... Use of expression, ''Official duty'' implies that the act or omission must have been done by the public servant in the course of his service and that it should have been in discharge of his duty. The section does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission done by a public servant in service but restricts its scope of operation to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servant in discharge of official duty.
The issue being governed by the settled law does not need any further discussion. Moreover, the observations contained in this Court''s order in Writ Petition No. 380 of 2002 dated 10th February, 2004 would no more govern the issue in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Anjani Kumar v. State of Bihar and another''s case.
It would, therefore, be not necessary to decide two other points urged in support of the challenge as to whether the subject-matter complaint is maintainable and as to whether contents of complaint warranted the cognizance.
In the result, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (ii). In the circumstances parties are directed to bear own costs.