IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.628 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.5.2010 Adarsh Gupta -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant seeking quashing of initiating of prosecution for alleged unfair labour practices committed by the appellant. 2. Case of the appellant is that complaint Annexure P.2 was ordered to be filed by the State of Haryana alleging commission of unfair labour practice to the effect that the workman was transferred to a place where there was no factory in existence and the workman represented to the labour department that the management was indulging in unfair LPA No.628 of 2010 (O&M) labour practice under Entry 7 of the Fifth Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’) by malafide transfer. On receiving complaint of the workman to that effect, notice was given to the appellant as to why prosecution be not initiated and thereafter complaint was filed. Grievance raised in the writ petition was that since filing of a complaint was not preceded by adjudication, the complaint was liable to be quashed. 3. Learned Single Judge rejected the submission holding that Sections 32 and 34 of the Act did not contemplate adjudication prior to filing of complaint. There was safeguard against filing of a frivolous complaint in the form of locus for filing complaint being available only under the authority of the appropriate Government. Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Leveer Limited v. Ashok Vishnu Kate and others, (1995) 6 SCC 326, it was held that unlike Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention Act, 1971, bar to initiation of prosecution without prior adjudication was not applicable in the present Act. The appellant had sufficient opportunity to defend himself before the Criminal Court. 2 LPA No.628 of 2010 (O&M) 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there being dispute as to guilt of the appellant, if a complaint was allowed to be filed without adjudication, it will amount to condemning the appellant unheard. 6. We are unable to accept this submission. Learned Single Judge rightly held that filing of complaint cannot by itself be held to be visiting the appellant with any civil consequences. The appellant will have due opportunity before the Court of Magistrate. 7. In the context of quashing of prosecution at the initial stage, the test to be applied is as to whether or not case is made out if allegations are accepted to be correct. If there are allegations which constitute an offence of unfair labour practice, there is no ground to stall prosecution on the plea that there was no prior hearing or adjudication. The Code of Criminal Procedure itself lays down procedure for filing of a complaint and summoning of an alleged accused if allegation, prima facie, shows an offence. Initiation of prosecution on allegations of commission of a criminal offence is an established norm in criminal jurisprudence. 3 LPA No.628 of 2010 (O&M) 8. In view of above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge May 14, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 4