IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 583 of 2005() ------------------------ ST.6319/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- R.SATHYANARAYANA MURTHY, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, PULLEPPADY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 035. BY ADV. SRI.E.SUBRAMANI SRI.S.EASWARAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS ------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (CENTRAL), ERNAKULAM, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) KENDRIYA SHRAMSADAN, OOLIMUGHAL, KAKKANAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI C.M. KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.1589/05 IN CRL.M.C.NO.583/2005 DISMISSED. 30-5-2008. SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.N0.583 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, 30th May, 2008. ORDER The petitioner who is the sole accused in S.T. No.6319/2004 pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Ernakulam seeks an order to quash the above proceedings as no offence is disclosed at the time of filing the complaint and the court below has committed mistake in taking cognizance upon such complaint. 2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri.E Subramani, appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had committed offence punishable under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 as he had failed to implement the award in I.D.No.7 of 1994 of the Labour Court, Ernakulam. It is averred in the petition that, challenging the award, the petitioner/accused herein had preferred O.P.No.19437/2001 before this Court and this Court received the same on file and on the date of admission, itself, an order of stay was granted , i.e. on 29-8-2002 against the operation and implementation of the award for a period of one month. The interim order thus granted was subsequently CRL.M.C. No.583/05 -:2:- extended from time to time and finally by order dated 22-7-2004, the stay was extended until further orders. To substantiate the contention, the petitioner has produced Annexure-I order of this Court. The specific case of the petitioner is that while stay order was in force, the respondent herein filed Annexure-II complaint upon which the court below took cognizance. On a perusal of Annexure II complaint it can be seen that the complaint was presented before the court on 15-9-2004 on which day there was already a stay from this Court as evidenced by Annexure I order dated 22-7-2004 that interim order was extended until further orders, that too after hearing the claimants. It is relevant to note that the complainant/Labour Enforcement authority was not a party in the writ petition as well as in the petition for stay in which the stay order was passed by this Court. However, by judgment dated 13-6-2007 in O.P. No.19437 of 2001, this Court has set aside the award in question while allowing the Original Petition. 4. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that there is no meaning in directing the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of trial and to face the charge. Having considered the fact that even at the time of filing the complaint, this Court has already stayed the operation of implementation of the award in question, the Magistrate ought CRL.M.C. No.583/05 -:3:- not have taken cognizance of the case. But the court below cannot be found fault with as no body has brought to the notice of the court below regarding the stay granted by this Court. 5. In the light of the subsequent development, especially, in view of the fact that the award is finally set aside by this Court vide judgment in the above writ petition, no offence will lie against the petitioner. Therefore, all the proceedings instituted upon Annexure-II complaint is liable to be quashed. In the result, Annexure II complaint and S.T.6319/2004 instituted thereon and pending before the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam are quashed. The Crl.M.C. is allowed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. kvm/-