IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2283 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.102/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOCIO ECONOMIC UNIT FOUNDATION, A1, BELL HEAVEN GARDEN, KAUDIAR, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SMT.KVP.JAYALEKSHMY SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) SMT.M.C.SHIJIMOL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. M.K.SUMALATHA, KANKOTTIL HOUSE, KUDATHILPARAMBU, CHIRAVANOOR P.O. FAROOQ, KOZHIKODE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2283 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The gist of the grievance in that prosecution is that a direction to reinstate a worker issued in an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, which direction has been upheld by a Single Bench and a Division Bench of this Court, has not been implemented. 2. What is the grievance ? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award has been complied with by the petitioner by issuing Annexure-A5 order. What is directed is reinstatement and Annexure-A5 is a fresh order of appointment on certain specified fresh terms. Show cause notice issued to the petitioner did not evoke a response which was satisfactory to the complainant and thereupon the prosecution was launched by the complainant. According to the petitioner, he has complied with the award by issuing Annexure-A5 order and therefore he is not liable to stand any prosecution. 3. I must carefully avoid any detailed expression on merits about the acceptability of the contentions raised by the petitioner, lest it may affect him prejudicially in the trial which is Crl.M.C. No.2283 of 2008 2 to take place before the learned Magistrate. The short question to be considered now is whether there has been satisfactory compliance with the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal as to hold that the steps taken to prosecute is so totally unjustified as to persuade this Court to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. The direction was to reinstate. Annexure-A5 only indicates a fresh appointment on fresh and different terms. That broad circumstance must itself convey to the Court that the petitioner is not entitled to the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and raise all his contentions. 5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that I have not expressed any final opinion as to whether there has been compliance with the award or not as to warrant conviction of the petitioner. I have only chosen now to hold that the criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner does not deserve to be quashed invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.M.C. No.2283 of 2008 3