Maruti S/O Narsingrao Ladde vs Balakdas S/O Lakhan Meshram, ...
2006 Latest Caselaw 627 Bom

JUDGMENT

K.J. Rohee, J.

Page 2414

1. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 17.12.2004 in Revision (ULPN) No. 49/2004 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Bhandara, confirming the order of the Labour Court, Bhandara dated 29.9.2003 in Criminal Complaint (ULPA) No.22/2003.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to set out the facts:- Ashok Leyland United Employees' Union is a Representative Union under the provisions of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 for the local area of tahsil Lakhni, district Bhandara for Engineering Industry. A manufacturing concern of M/s Ashok Leyland Limited ( a public limited company under the Companies Act, 1956) is situated in the said local area. The said Representative Union filed Complaint (ULPN) No. 729/2000 before the Industrial Court, Nagpur against Ashok Leyland Limited under Section 28 of the MRTU and PULP Act alleging unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act. Relief was claimed in respect of 53 persons enlisted in the Annexure. The name of first respondent herein appears at Sr.No.20 in the said Annexure. An application under Section 30(2) of the said Act for interim relief was also moved. The sole respondent viz. Ashok Leyland Limited filed its written statement opposing the complaint as well as the application for interim relief. On 27.9.2000 a joint pursis was filed by the complainant Union and the respondent Company. On the basis of the said pursis, an application for interim relief was disposed of by the Industrial Court in terms of the pursis. Subsequently the complainant Union filed another application for interim relief on 8.1.2001. The Company filed its reply. Thereafter on 29.3.2001 the Company filed pursis. The Industrial Court disposed of the application for interim relief by an order dated 27.4.2001.

3. In terms of interim orders no.1 and 2, the present respondent no.1 was employed by the company from time to time for specified periods. During his short tenure as temporary employee, respondent no.1 herein was charge sheeted twice and warning was given to him. At the end of his tenure of temporary employment, he was discontinued by the Company. He was not given temporary employment thereafter by the Company on account of his poor performance.

4. About a year after the lapse of his last tenure of temporary employment, the first respondent herein in his individual capacity filed Criminal Complaint (ULPA) No. 22/2003 before the Labour Court, Bhandara under Section 48(1) of MRTU and PULP Act alleging disobedience of the Industrial Court's order dated 27.4.2001 in Complaint (ULPA) No. 729/2000. Criminal (ULPA) No. 22/2003 was filed against the Manager (the present petitioner) and the Deputy Manager of the Company. By order dated 29.9.2003 , the Labour Court directed issuance of process against the Manager (the present petitioner) and the Deputy Manager under Section 48 of MRTU & PULP Act. Accordingly the Manager and the Deputy Manager appeared before the Court and were released on personal bonds. The particulars of offence were explained to them. Thereafter the Manager (the present petitioner) and the Deputy Manager preferred Revision Page 2415 (ULPA) No. 49/2004 against the said order before the Industrial Court. By order dated 17.12.2004, the Industrial Court allowed the revision so far as relating to Deputy Manager and confirmed the order of issuance of process against the Manager (the present petitioner). The orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court have been challenged by this petition.

5. I have heard Mr. V.R. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Nobody appeared for the respondents.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned orders mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not a party to Complaint (ULPA) No. 729/2000 and that the said complaint was filed only against the Company. In the absence of the petitioner having been joined as party to the said complaint, no vicarious liability can be imposed on him because vicarious liability is unknown in criminal jurisprudence. He further submitted that the impugned orders are illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside.

7. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed his reliance on Dipak Ray and Ors. v. Mafatlal Engineering Employees Union and Ors. 1995 I CLR 200 (Bombay). In the said matter the crucial issue which was before the Court was whether a Director or Officer of a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 can be liable for contravention of an order passed under the provisions of the Act even though such Director or Officer was not party to the proceedings in which the order was passed, despite there being no provision in the Act imposing such vicarious penal liability on a Director or Officer of a limited Company for the default of a limited Company. The Court imported analogy given in an earlier decision in C. Eduljee & Co. v. 1st Labour Court, Nagpur and Ors. 1976 LAB I.C. 1077 (Bombay) and held as under:

Unless an individual Director or Officer was himself party to the original proceedings in which the order which is alleged to have been breached, was made, cannot be made liable in subsequent proceedings in which the criminal jurisdiction of the Labour Court to try offences under the Act is invoked.

8. In the present case, it is apparent that in Complaint (ULPA) No. 729/2000 the Company was the sole respondent. No Director or Officer of the Company including the present petitioner was party to the said complaint. As such Criminal Complaint (ULPA) No. 22/2003 could not have been instituted against the present petitioner. Both the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court overlooked the legal position and not only issued process but also explained particulars under Section 48 of the MRTU & PULP Act. In view of the legal position highlighted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Criminal Complaint (ULPA) No. 22/2003 cannot be sustained against the petitioner. Hence the order:

The writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Industrial Court on 17.12.2004 in Revision (ULPA) No. 49/2004 is quashed and set aside and Criminal Complaint (ULPA) No. 22/2003 before the Labour Court is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.