L.N. Jha @ Lakshmi Narayan Jha vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 06.10.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 2009, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.09.2009 passed by the Special Judge (Economic Offences) Jamshedpur in C/I Case No. 133 of 2006 whereby the petitioner was directed to vacate the quarter within 3 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, has been affirmed.

The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was working in Tata Steel Company Ltd.-opposite party no. 2 and he was extended the facilities of residential accommodation by the company with effect from 10 th September, 1990. It was stipulated in the terms of agreement that so long, the petitioner will be in employment of the company he will avail facility of the allotted quarter with necessary fixtures and fittings and immediately after termination of employment he will handover the vacant possession of the quarter to the opposite party no. 2. It is a specific case of the opposite party no. 2-company before the learned court below that the petitioner ceased to be in employment of the company since 01.02.2004 and he was bound to handover the vacant possession of the premises in question to the company but the petitioner failed to do so and deprived the company from the use of the said premises for its other working employees who are entitled to get the same.

The learned trial court found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act for retaining allotted quarter illegally and directed the petitioner to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and further directed to handover vacant possession of the allotted quarter i.e. HB/476 New Baridih, Jamshedpur to the opposite party no. 2-Tata Steel Company Ltd. within 3 months from the date of the order passed by the learned trial court.

The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner before the learned appellate court but the appellate court did not interfere with the order of learned trial court.

Mr. P.P.N. Roy, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is suffering from renal failure and is in very precarious condition. He further submits that he has not received the gratuity amount for which, the petitioner is entitled.

Per contra, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that he has every sympathy with the petitioner but the same cannot be the ground for not vacating the quarter in question. He further submits that as per the Company Rule, the moment petitioner will vacate the quarter he will get the gratuity amount immediately.

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after going through the impugned orders and the lower courts records and also the entire order sheet of this case it appears that enough time has been granted to the petitioner on the ground that he is suffering from renal failure but this cannot continue for ever. I am in agreement with the argument advanced by Mr. Sinha that the ground of illness of the petitioner cannot absolve him from vacating the premises in question.

In my considered opinion, the petitioner has failed to point out any error in the impugned orders and the same is hereby confirmed. I further direct the petitioner to vacate the quarter on or before 31st December, 2019. In the meantime, the opposite party no. 2-Tata Steel Company Ltd. will send a letter to the petitioner about the details of the due, which shall be paid to the petitioner after vacation of the premises in question. It is made clear that the entire dues shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two weeks after vacation of the quarter as per the company rules. I further clarify that if for any reason, whatsoever, the quarter is not vacated and handed over to the opposite party no. 2-Tata Steel Company Ltd. then the opposite party no. 2 will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant revision application is dismissed.

Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.