CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17734 OF 1998 ------- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. -------- M/s United Distillers Limited, P.O. Mirganj, District Gopalganj through the General Manager Col. Ravinder Kumar Mohan, Retd. ....... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through the Under Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna 2. The Commissioner, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Siwan ...... OPPOSITE PARTIES -------- For the Petitioner : M/s Ranjit K. Das and Rohitabh Das, Advocates For the State : Mr Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Sr. Advocate -------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH Shiva Kirti Singh, J. Petitioner is a company which has moved this Court through its General Manager under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the entire proceedings including the order of cognizance dated 6.11.1992 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in Other Act Case No.44 of 1992 lodged through an official complaint by the State Government and Labour Commissioner, Siwan alleging offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the petitioner company and several of its officials and directors. 2 2. From the complaint petition contained in Annexure- 7, it has been shown that the allegations are to the effect that the accused persons have breached the terms of an award dated 23.7.1985 by the Industrial Tribunal, Patna in Reference Case No.34/82. A copy of that award has also been annexed to this application as Annexure-3. The findings of the Tribunal as appearing in the said award, particularly in paragraphs 27 and 28 have been highlighted to submit that the Tribunal came to a definite conclusion that the question of liability of the petitioner company had to be determined and as per law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal held that “the U.D.P.L. was not a necessary party to this proceeding and the question of liability between the management and U.D.P.L. is beyond the scope of the Reference. It has to be held that the U.D.P.L. was summoned without proper cause.” It was further held that “it is not possible to hold that U.D.P.L. was successor in interest of the S.K.G. Sugar Ltd.”. In paragraph 28 the Tribunal has further held that “The concerned workmen were admittedly the employees of the management of the S.K.G. Sugar Ltd. And it was the management who had retrenched them. The liability has, therefore, to be fastened on the management of the S.K.G. Sugar Ltd.”. 3. On the basis of above materials, it has been submitted by Mr Ranjit K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner company, which was earlier United Distillers Private Limited (U.D.P.L.) but now United Distillers Limited, that the complainant erred 3 in law in lodging the complaint against petitioner company and its officials when in terms of the award of the Tribunal itself the petitioner was not at all liable in respect of liabilities arising from the award. 4. On the other hand, Mr Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar has submitted that the aforesaid defence should be left to be considered by the court below at appropriate stage and it would not be proper to go into the documents or facts in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to him, such power is to be exercised only in rarest of rare cases and not in the case of present nature. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner company is found to have merits. Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides a penalty for breach of settlement or award by any person on whom such settlement or award is binding under the Act. In the present case, as the award shows on its face, the liabilities are confined to M/s S.K.G. Sugar Limited, hence, the award has nothing to do with the petitioner company and cannot bind it so far as liabilities are concerned. The submission of learned counsel for the State is not acceptable because the complaint is found to be vitiated and misconceived on its face and does not require any probe into facts because the award in question is not in dispute. In that view of the matter, it has to be held that the official complaint lodged by the opposite parties against the petitioner is misconceived and not maintainable. Hence, this application is allowed. 4 The complaint petition so far as it relates to petitioner company and its officials, is quashed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) Patna High Court The 19th March, 2010 AFR / S.Kumar