Lakshmna Meka vs Tata Chemicals Ltd. and Another

J.C. Upadhyaya, J.—The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Khambhaliya, Dist. Jamnagar dated 31/1/2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 34/2002. The petitioner was original accused in Criminal Case No. 970/1994 and by judgment and order dated 17/5/2002 the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dwarka recorded conviction of the petitioner original accused for the offence punishable u/s 630 of the Companies Act and imposed fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 10 days. The Ld. Magistrate further directed that the petitioner accused shall hand-over vacant and peaceful possession of the quarters in question on or before 30/06/2002, failing which he shall have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. As stated above, the petitioner challenged said order by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 34/2002, which came to be dismissed on 31/1/2008. Hence the present revision application.

Heard learned advocate Mr. KM Paul for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. VK Patel for the respondent No. 1 and Ld. APP Mr. Nanavati for the respondent No. 2 - State.

Learned advocate Mr. Paul relied upon a copy of the memorandum of association and articles of association of respondent No. 1 company and drawing my attention to item No. 62, it was submitted that the respondent No. 1 company is bound to provide residential quarters even to ex-employees. It is further submitted that the removal order of the petitioner from the respondent No. 1 company came to be challenged by the petitioner before the Labour Court and the Labour Court allowed the petition of the petitioner and granted reinstatement in service. However, it is submitted that the respondent No. 1 company challenged said order passed by the Labour Court before this Court and the order of reinstatement came to be stayed by this Court.

On behalf of respondents, the application is vehemently opposed and my attention was drawn to order dated 1/7/2008 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 311/2008 and allied matters and submitted that the points which are now canvassed on behalf of the petitioner, have been elaborately discussed in the said judgment and ultimately the revision applications came to be dismissed. However, this Court granted some time for vacating respective quarters to those petitioners upon filing undertaking. It is submitted that such order came to be confirmed even by Hon''ble the Apex Court. My attention was drawn to an order dated 15/10/2008 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 951/2005 and other allied matters, whereby almost identical order came to be passed by this Court. Therefore, it is submitted that the revision application may be dismissed.

I have taken into consideration copy of the judgment and order dated 17/5/2002 passed in Criminal Case No. 970/1994 and the order passed by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 34/2002. Considering both these orders and the grounds raised in the revision application, there does not appear any illegality or any irregularity in recording the conviction of the petitioner for the offence in question by the trial Court. Even considering the order dated 22/8/2008 passed in this case itself, this Court directed that the learned advocate for the petitioner may seek necessary instructions and make statement as to in how-much time the petitioner shall vacate the quarters.

5.1. Considering the order dated 15/10/2008 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 951/2005 and allied matters by this Court and the order dated 1/7/2008 delivered by this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 311/2008 and other allied matters, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners have been elaborately discussed and replied in both the above referred orders.

So far as the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner subsequently came to be reinstated by the Labour Court and, therefore, the revision application deserves to be allowed is concerned, learned advocate Mr. Patel for the respondent No. 1 relied upon a decision rendered in the case of Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. v. State of Gujarat reported in 2007 (1) G.L.H. 278, wherein this Court took into consideration the effect of litigation before Labour Court and ultimately came to the conclusion that the employees are not entitled to retain quarters allotted to them and hence restored the order of conviction recorded by the trial Court for the offence punishable u/s 630 of the Companies Act.

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of this case and in light of the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, the revision application deserves to be dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be in the interest of justice if reasonable time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the quarters in question.

For the foregoing reasons, the revision application is dismissed. The judgments and orders passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court stand confirmed. However, the petitioner is permitted to retain the quarters in question, which he is occupying, till 22/07/2009 and is directed to hand-over the vacant and peaceful possession of the same to the respondent No. 1 company on or before 22/07/2009. The petitioner shall file an undertaking before this Court to the aforesaid effect on or before 06/05/2009. The order regarding handing-over vacant and peaceful possession by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1 company shall remain suspended till 22/07/2009. It is made clear that if the possession is not handed over on or before 22/07/2009, then the petitioner shall not only has to undergo the sentence awarded by the trial Court in default of handing over possession, but the respondent No. 1 company will be entitled to take possession and take further steps in accordance with law. Rule is discharged.