1 (Crim wp 2189 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2189 OF 2010 M/s. Swastik Steels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors....Petitioners Vs. P.S. Kadam & Another ...Respondents ----- Mr.Gobindram D. Talreja & Associates for Petitioners Mr.Y.C. Naidu and Mr.Saurabh Kulkarni i/b. C.R. Naidu and Co. for Respondent No.1 Mrs. P.P. Bhosale -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 9TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial Court at Thane dated 16.6.2010 in Criminal Revision Application (ULP) No.01 of 2008. By the said order, the Industrial Court, Thane was pleased to partly allow the revision application and, thereafter, remanded the matter back to the Trial Court, directing the Trial Court to first decide the question of issuance of process. 2 (Crim wp 2189 of 2010) 3. Brief facts are that the complaint was filed by the Respondent No.1 against the Petitioner for the offence punishable under clause 14, inter alia, other clauses of the Mathadi Scheme. Under the complaint, initially, process was issued by the Labour Court. The Petitioner herein filed an application for closure of the said proceedings on various grounds. His application, however, was dismissed by the Labour Court. Therefore, the Petitioner preferred a revision application in the Industrial Court. In the Industrial Court, it was urged that the Labour Court, without application of mind, had issued process by putting a rubber stamp on the complaint, which clearly indicated that the Labour Court had not applied its mind and had mechanically put a rubber stamp and had issued process. The Industrial Court, Thane, accepted the contention of the Petitioner and recorded a finding that the Labour Court had not passed any order of issuing process and, therefore, the said order of issuance of process was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Labour Court with a direction that the Labour Court should examine the material on record, hear the Complainant, take into consideration the application according to the Act and the Scheme and thereafter, pass an order in accordance with law. 3 (Crim wp 2189 of 2010) 4. After remanded the matter back to the Labour Court, the Magistrate has thereafter, considered the material on record and was pleased to issue process by order dated 24.6.2010. 5. Shri Talreja, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Industrial Court, Thane, ought to have dismissed the entire complaint since the mandatory provisions of section 200 had not been complied. He submitted that prejudice was caused to the accused particularly because the Labour Court had proceeded to record the statements of witnesses though process was not issued. He, therefore, submitted that this was a fit case where the entire complaint itself was liable to be quashed. 6. It is not possible to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The Industrial Court in fact, had accepted the arguments of the Petitioner and had directed the Labour Court to consider the matter afresh and decide the question of issuance of process on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Labour Court has now examined the issue afresh and has passed appropriate order. 7. In my view, no case is made out for interfering 4 (Crim wp 2189 of 2010) with the order passed by the Labour Court. 8. It is further clarified that since the order of issuance of process has been passed on 24 th June, 2010, the earlier evidence which has been recorded will not be taken on record by the learned Magistrate and that process also will have to be initiated once again by the Complainant since by virtue of the order of the Industrial Court in Revision Application No.1 of 2008, the entire earlier proceedings were set aside. The Labour Court, however, shall expeditiously dispose of the complaint filed by the Respondent and preferably within a period of six months. If any application for exemption is filed by the Petitioner, the same will be considered on merits and in accordance with law. 9. Petition is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)