IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22355 of 2007 MADHURENDRA KUMAR, son of late Sailendra Bihari Verma, resident of Mohalla – Maripur, School Road, P.S. Kazimohammadpur, District - Muzaffarpur Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Labour Superintendent, Office of the Labour Department, Muzaffarpur. ----------- For the petitioner: M/S. Birendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate and Manish Kumar. For the State: A P P. --------- 04. 18.05.2009 Heard learned senior counsel representing the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Petitioner is seeking quashing of the cognizance order 28.1.2004 passed by the A C J M, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No.19 of 2004. Cognizance has been taken under sections 25-T, 25-U and 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that according to complaint bipartite agreement was entered into between the management and the workers dated 26.8.2002 which is annexure-4 to the quashing application, brought on record with supplementary affidavit. It is alleged that despite the said agreement the accused persons have committed breach and liable to be prosecuted for the said offence as mentioned above. Based on the complaint filed by the Labour Superintendent, Muzaffarpur, cognizance has come to be taken. Submission of the learned senior counsel is that the petitioner himself was a workman or an employee of the company - 2 - and he was not Incharge of the management of the company. The agreement was between the management and the workmen. The petitioner has been unnecessarily dragged into the case because he happened to be a Liaison Officer as has been described as his designation in the letter of appointment, with a monthly consolidated salary of Rs.950/-. He was not part of the management but as much as workman like any other under the company. For the breaches against the parties to the agreement or the signatories to the agreement ought to be prosecuted. The petitioner was not the signatory. In that view of the matter his prosecution cannot be sustained. The matter has been looked into and examined. The basic submission on the fact aspect coupled with legal proposition which emerges from the same seems to be borne out. It is nobody’s case that the petitioner was the partner or the management Incharge of the company who had entered into agreement of bipartite and if that is so, the prosecution of the petitioner seems to be an abuse of the process of the court. Petitioner has made out a case for interference. The order dated 28.1.2004 passed in complaint case No. 19 of 2004 stands quashed. The application is allowed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)