IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 587 of 2003() ----------------------------- ST.115/2002 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: -------------------------------- JOSE ABRAHAM, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ERNAKULAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-24. BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. * INTERVENOR 3 ERNAKULAM DAIRY CASUAL LABOURER'S UNION, TRIPUNITHURA IS INCLUDED AS INTERVENOR AS PER ORDER DATED 06/04/2005 IN CRL. M.A. 3704/2005. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. B. VINOD R3 BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs CRMC.NO.587/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE AI:COPY OF THE COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 34 OF I.D.ACT. ANNEXURE A2:COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 29/09/2000 IN I.D. NO.129/94. ANNEXURE A3:COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04/07/2002 IN O.P.18106/2002. ANNEXURE A4:COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07/01/2002 IN O.P.NO.35564/2000. ANNEXURE A5:COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 23/07/2002 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A6:COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 01/08/2002 TO ANNEXURE A5 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs B.P.RAY, J. ----------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.587 OF 2003 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of July, 2011 O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the defacto complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioner filed this case seeking to quash Annexure I complaint pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam as S.T.No.115/02 for offence punishable under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Non- implementation of the award passed by the Labour Court and modified by this Court is the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner categorically submitted in paragraph 7 of the petition as follows: “the petitioner has complied with the direction in Annexure A2 award and therefore, no action under Section 29 of the I.D.Act will lie against the petitioner”. In view of such statement, the continuance of criminal case, that is, S.T.No.115/02 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, will not inure to the benefit of Crl.MC.587/03 2 either parties. Further continuance of that case before the trial court will be abuse of the process of the court. Hence I direct that the criminal case on the complaint filed by respondent No.1 shall be treated as quashed. Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above. Sd/- B.P.Ray, Judge. kkb.27/7.