^ IN THE COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR WmT_PETITION,( L~ ) N0.7'(<30F 2010 * ^'•^ ••»• RESPONDENTS; ^.0.^-^ o^:v^> ^.^-^-^.-^" ^' .^^ "^ A»K, Chakrabarti, S/o.Lafe Shri R.N. Chakrabarti, aged about 63 years, Raj West Power Limited, Guru Kripa, G»F. Barmer (Rajasthan) Versus P'actory Inspector, Government of Chhattisgarh, Industrial ' Health & Safety, Opposite Gange Shree Parisar, , Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG). i. Labour Court, Korba, District Korba (Chahttisgarh), through its Presidi.ng Officer. 1. Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Bench at Bilaspur (CG), through its Presiding Officer. WRBT PETITIOM UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF TH1 CONSTITUTION OF ^y^^ ^' 1\ \!€'^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (L) N0. 763 OF 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENT A.K. Chakrabarti Versus Factory Inspector & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate with Shri R. Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. 1. 2. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 18th day of February, 2011) The sole grievance of the petitioner is that the Industrial Court without examining the applicability of the provisions of the Code bf Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C.") in case of Industrial dispute, has come to the conclusion that once the Labour Court while exercising power of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, has issued summons, the Industrial Court cannot interfere with the proceedings till it is finally concluded. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharasthtra and another1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on the earlier decision of the Supreme Court, held that the only remedy available to an aggrieved accused to challenge an order in an interlocutory stage is the extraordinary remedy under ^ectjon 482 of the Qpde and not by way of 9n application to recall the summons or to seek di§charge which js not contemplatecl in the trial of a summons cgse. |n the instant case, summons were issued by the Labour Court -cum- Judicial Magistrate First Class, ^F^. AIR 2004 SC 4711 ^^ ^ .--ff^ 1 ^J] •^^.y e>< 6. v' Korba, for alleged violation of provisions of Section 41 B (4) of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short "the Act, 1948"). Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an application before the Industrial Court under the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 67 read with Section 64-A of Chhattisgarh Industrial Relation Act, 1960 (for short "the Act, 1960"). Learned counsel appearing for the State/first respondent submits in support ofthe impugned order dated 10.12.2009. Section 64 of the Act, 1960, provides that in respect of offences punishable under the Act, 1960 or any of the Act specified in Schedule 11-A, the Labour Court shall have the powers under the Cr.P.C. of a Judicial Magistrate First Class in the trial of every such offence. Needless to mention that the offence under the Act, 1948, is specified in Schedule 11-A of the Act, 1960. Thus, any offence arising from violation of any provision under theAct, 1948, is also triable by the Labour Court having the powers of the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Sub Section (2) of Section 64 further provides that the Industrial Court shall have all the powers of the High Court under Cr.P.C., thus, the power of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is also exercisable by the Industrial Court in relation to offence aforestated. In case of Dharimal Tobacco Products Ltd.& Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. , it was held that even if a revision petition against issuance of process is maintainable, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 is not barred. The same jurisdiction has been AIR 2009 SC 1032 g^i^^ •^' 8. \-^ conferred on the Industrial Court also under provisions of Section 64oftheAct, 1960. Thus, the impugned order dismissing the application on the ground that the Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to consider the application under Section 482 of the Code read with Section 67 and 64-A of the Act, 1960 is bad and vitiated. The observation of the Industrial Court that since summons have been issued by the Labour Court-cum- Judicial Magistrate First Class, no interference can be done by the Industrial Court under Sub Section 2 of Section 64 of the Act, 1960 is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 21.11.2005 (Annexure P-1) and 10.12.2009 (Annexure P-2) are quashed. The petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Industrial Court to consider the application of the petitioner filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Section 67 read with Section 64-A ofthe Act, 1960 on its own merit, in accordance with law. No order asto costs. ashok Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge