1 CriWP 1163 to 1166,1649/16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1163 OF 2016
1 Brijlal S/o Sadasukh Modani, PETITIONER
Aged 70 Years, Occupation
Business, Chairman of Osmanabad
Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd., Head
Office, Main Road, Osmanabad,
Resident of Osmanabad, Taluka
and District Osmanabad
2 Vasantrao S/o Sambhajirao Nagde,
Aged 74 Years, Occupation
Business, Resident of Osmanabad,
Taluka and District Osmanabad
V E R S U S
Mahadev S/o Shankarrao Mali, RESPONDENT
Aged 60 Years, Occupation Nil,
Resident of at Post Marsa
[Khandeshwari], Taluka Kalamb,
District Osmanabad
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1164 OF 2016
1 Brijlal S/o Sadasukh Modani, PETITIONERS
Aged 70 Years, Occupation
Business, Chairman of Osmanabad
Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd., Head
Office, Main Road, Osmanabad,
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 00:08:21 :::
2 CriWP 1163 to 1166,1649/16
Resident of Osmanabad, Taluka
and District Osmanabad
2 Vasantrao S/o Sambhajirao Nagde,
Aged 74 Years, Occupation
Business, Resident of Osmanabad,
Taluka and District Osmanabad
V E R S U S
Vijaykumar S/o Vishwanath RESPONDENT
Hanchate, Aged 57 Years,
Occupation Service, Resident of
at Post Vaibhava Niwas, Tambari
Division, Near Bhosale High
School, Osmanabad, Taluka and
District Osmanabad
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1165 OF 2016
Vasantrao S/o Sambhajirao Nagde, PETITIONER
Aged 74 Years, Occupation
Business, Resident of Osmanabad,
Taluka and District Osmanabad
V E R S U S
Shrihari S/o Dattatraya Lomate, RESPONDENT
Aged 55 Years, Occupation
Service, Resident of at Post
Diwati [Salgare], Taluka
Tuljapur, District Osmanabad
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 00:08:21 :::
3 CriWP 1163 to 1166,1649/16
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1166 OF 2016
1 Brijlal S/o Sadasukh Modani, PETITIONERS
Aged 70 Years, Occupation
Business, Chairman of Osmanabad
Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd., Head
Office, Main Road, Osmanabad,
Resident of Osmanabad, Taluka
and District Osmanabad
2 Vasantrao S/o Sambhajirao Nagde,
Aged 74 Years, Occupation
Business, Resident of Osmanabad,
Taluka and District Osmanabad
V E R S U S
Mohan S/o Dadarao Agawane, Aged RESPONDENT
47 Years, Occupation Service,
Resident of at Post Chinchpur
[Dhage], Taluka Bhoom, District
Osmanabad
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1649 OF 2016
1 Brijlal S/o Sadasukh Modani, PETITIONERS
Aged 70 Years, Occupation
Business, Chairman of Osmanabad
Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd., Head
Office, Main Road, Osmanabad,
Resident of Osmanabad, Taluka
and District Osmanabad
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 00:08:21 :::
4 CriWP 1163 to 1166,1649/16
2 Vasantrao S/o Sambhajirao Nagde,
Aged 74 Years, Occupation
Business, Resident of Osmanabad,
Taluka and District Osmanabad
V E R S U S
Pradeep S/o Vitthalrao Gund, RESPONDENT
Aged 51 Years, Occupation Nil,
Resident of at Post : Kharala,
Taluka Renapur, District Latur
Mr. A.N. Irpatgire, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. A.V. Patil, Advocate for the Respondents
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATE : 11TH DECEMBER, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT :
All the petitions are filed to challenge the orders passed by the learned Judge of Labour Court and the decision given by the learned Industrial Court in proceedings filed as complaints under Section 48 [1] of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 [hereinafter referred as 'said Act']. The petitioners ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 00:08:21 ::: 5 CriWP 1163 to 1166,1649/16 are shown as accused persons in those proceedings. By filing the applications, the present petitioners had prayed for discharging them in those proceedings. The applications are rejected by the Labour Court and revisions filed before the Industrial Court against the said order are also dismissed.
2. Both the sides are heard.
3. The submissions made and the record show that the proceedings like Criminal Complaint [ULP] Nos. 38 of 2012, 36 of 2012, 54 of 2011, 35 of 2012 and 37 of 2012 filed before the Labour Court by the complainants of aforesaid proceedings were allowed and the decision given by the Labour Court was confirmed by the Industrial Court. Those decisions were challenged by the present petitioners/accused by filing writ petitions in this court. This Court had not granted stay during pendency to the decision given by the Labour court which was to pay back wages, wages and the directions to re-instate them. This Court modified the order to make it 50% payment of back wages. This ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 00:08:21 ::: 6 CriWP 1163 to 1166,1649/16 decision was taken up to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave petition filed against the order of this Court.
4. The submissions made and the record show that the decision was given by the Labour Court on 14 th March, 2011, but there was no compliance of the order made by the Labour Court and, so the complaints under Section 48 of the said Act were filed in December, 2012. On the date of complaint, admittedly, there was no compliance of the impugned order, and so, the Labour Court took cognizance of the matter and issued process.
5. The learned counsel for the present petitioners submitted that when this Court had modified the decision to make the payment of amount of back wages i.e. 50% of the amount directed by the Labour Court, the matter ought not to have been entertained under Section 48 of the said Act. This submission is not at all acceptable for the reason that on the date of complaint, there was no compliance ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 00:08:21 ::: 7 CriWP 1163 to 1166,1649/16 at all of the order of Labour Court and there was no stay of any kind granted by this Court. These circumstances are sufficient to hold that the labour did not commit any error in entertaining the matter under Section 48 of the said Act.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner then referred to the directions given by this Court in Contempt Petition No.457 of 2013 with other proceedings filed in Writ Petition No.9300 of 2011 and other petitions. It appears that vide order dated 20th July, 2015, this Court had directed the parties to appear before the Labour Court and get determined the amount under Section 50 of the said Act. It was submitted that, if there was such direction, the proceeding filed under Section 48 of the said Act could not have been continued. This submission is also misconceived. This Court had made it clear that if the payment was made, then it was possible to make statement in that regard in criminal proceedings. It can be said that the compliance of this order also was not made. After decision given by the Labour Court ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 00:08:21 ::: 8 CriWP 1163 to 1166,1649/16 also amount was not deposited by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that those orders were also challenged. This submission cannot help the petitioners as the petitioners could have deposited the amount under protest. This can be said in respect of the initial order also that was not complied by the petitioners.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued on the basis of some provisions of Multi-State Co-operative societies Act. He submitted that in view of provisions of Section 49 of the said Act, the petitioner, who is Chairman of Osmanabad Janta Sahakari Bank, could not have acted on his own and he had placed the matter before the Board in view of provisions of Section 49 of the said Act. He submitted that the Board took a decision to challenge the decision of Labour Court and, therefore, the amount was not deposited. This submission is not at all acceptable. When there was the order of Labour Court and Appellate Courts had not granted stay, the order ought to have been complied with.
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 00:08:21 :::
9 CriWP 1163 to 1166,1649/16
8. One more submission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when there is Central legislation like Contempt Act, the prosecution of the present petitioner cannot be allowed under the State legislation. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on observations made by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.11247 of 2016 [UCO Bank & Anr. V. Dipak Debbarma & Ors.], decided on 25th November, 2016. This Court has carefully gone through the matter involved in the said proceedings and also the observations made by the Apex Court. The facts of said Appeal were totally different than the case in hand. In any case, in the present matter, the provisions of the said Act are not under challenge and only the order made by the Labour Court which is confirmed by the Industrial Court is under challenge. This Court has gone through the provisions of the said Act, and so, the observations made by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case cannot be used in favour of the present petitioners.
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 00:08:21 :::
10 CriWP 1163 to 1166,1649/16
9. One more point was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners is point of limitation. He submits that the Labour Court could not have taken cognizance of the matter in view of the provisions of Section 48 of the said Act providing for imprisonment of only three months. This submission is also not acceptable. The wrong committed by the petitioners was continuing and the provision of Section 48 of the said Act shows that if there is non-compliance of order, the matter lies as 'complaint'. Admittedly, on the date of the complaint, no amount was deposited in compliance of the order.
10. This Court holds that both the Courts below have not committed any error in rejecting the applications filed for discharge. In the result, all the Criminal Writ Petitions stand dismissed.
( T.V. NALAWADE, J. )
SRM/11/12/17
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 00:08:21 :::
11 CriWP 1163 to 1166,1649/16
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 00:08:21 :::