M/s. Guha and Co. and Another vs R.N. Misra and Another

Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.—By an award, passed on a reference u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioners in this Rule were directed to reinstate one of their employees. The award was published in the Calcutta Gazette Extraordinary dated 25.9.76. As the petitioners did not implement the said award a complaint was filed against them on 12.4.79 u/s 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act (''Act'' for short), read with section 32 of the Act. On that complaint the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, took cognizance and, after the petitioners entered appearance, transferred the case to the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta for disposal. In the transferee Court an application was filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the maintainability of the prosecution on the ground of limitation. As the learned Magistrate rejected the said application, the petitioners moved this Court and obtained this Rule. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that in view of section 19(3) of the Act the award was to remain valid for a period of one year from the date it became enforceable u/s 17A of the Act, that is from 25.10.76, and as such the petitioners were under no obligation to implement the award thereafter nor were they liable for prosecution for its non- implementation after the expiry of the said period. Accordingly, it was submitted, the period of limitation was to run lastly from 25.10.77, on which day, the period of one year u/s. 19(3) of the said Act expired and since admittedly cognizance was taken thereafter it was barred by limitation. The submissions so made are without any substance whatsoever.

Section 19(3) has to be read with section 19(6) of the Act and once so read, there cannot be any manner of doubt that the obligation of the petitioners to implement the award continues so long as the award is not terminated in accordance with section 19(6) of the Act; and in the complaint it has been specifically stated that the award has not been terminated. It necessarily follows that so long as the award remains valid and operative the petitioners are bound to implement it and their liability for prosecution u/s 29 of the Act for non-implementation continues. The learned Magistrate was therefore fully justified in rejecting the application of the petitioners. It was also submitted that as the petitioner No. 2 was the proprietor of petitioner No. 1, the latter could not be prosecuted, being not a body corporate. Prima facie there is some substance in this contention of the petitioners. But then, from the materials now obtaining on record, it cannot be ascertained whether the petitioner No. 1 is a body corporate or not. If however it is found subsequently that petitioner No. 1 is not a body corporate the learned Magistrate will drop the proceeding as against it, and continue with the same against petitioner No. 2 only. If, however, petitioner No. 1 is a body corporate it is liable for prosecution along with the petitioner No. 2 with the aid of section 32 of the Act.

The Rule is thus disposed of.