Bombay High Court
Brijlal S/O Sadasukh Modani And ... vs Mohan S/O Dadarao Agawane on 11 December, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
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 00:08:25 :::
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 00:08:25 :::
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 00:08:25 :::
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
11 CriWP 1163 to 1166,1649/16
