Jharkhand High Court

M/S. Beldih Club vs Anita Nag on 10 March, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 W.P. (Cr.) No.235 of 2024
                             ------

1. M/s. Beldih Club, Triangle Road, Northern Town, Bistupur, PO & PS- Bistupur, Town- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) through it's Hony. Secretary, Sri Prasanto Kumar Ghose, aged about 55 years, S/o Pravat Chandra Ghose, R/o- Flat No.-5484, Vijaya Gardens, Baridih Jamshepur, Baridih Colony, PO- Baridih Colony, PS- Baridih Colony, East Singhbhum, (Jharkhand-831017), who is representing the other petitioners herein.

2. Secretary, M/s. Beldih Club, Triangle Road, Northern Town, Bistupur, PO & PS- Bistupur, Town- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum (Jharkhand)

3. General Manager, M/s. Beldih Club, Trianble Road, Northern Town, Bistupur, PO & PS- Bistupur, Town- Jamshedpur, District-

   East Singhbhum (Jharkhand)
                                          ...          Petitioners
                           Versus

1. Anita Nag, aged about 39 years, wife of Late Sohan Nag,

2. Ansu Nag, aged about 18 years, D/o Late Sohan Nag,

3. Vivek Nag (Minor), aged about 16 years, S/o. Late Sohan Nag. Respondent No.3 being a minor may be represented by his natural guardian respondent No.1 Anita Nag (mother); All are residents of Bheruanbhata, PO- Ambapali, Saintala, PO & PS- Ambapali, District- Balangir, PIN 767032 (Odisha).

                                      ...            Respondents
                             ------
  For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
                        Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate
  For the Respondents : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate
                              ------
                        PRESENT
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

 By the Court:-    Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance

of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for quashing the entire criminal

proceeding in connection with Misc. Case No.16 of 2019 arising out of I.D. Case

No.06 of 2015 including the order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the learned

Labour Court, Jamshedpur whereby and where under the Labour Court,

Jamshedpur has allowed the application for substitution of the original

applicant by his legal heirs without considering the fact that since Misc. Case

No.16 of 2019 has been filed under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 where there is no provision for substitution, hence, there is no

way the Labour Court would have allowed the prayer for substitution.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the ancestor of the respondents namely

Sohan Nag was an employee of the writ petitioner's club and his services were

terminated. Sohan Nag filed an application under Section 2A of the Industrial

Dispute Act as amended by the Amendment Act, 2010 challenging the order of

termination. The same was registered as I.D. Case No.06 of 2015 by the Labour

Court, Jamshedpur. In the said I.D. Case No.06 of 2015, Sohan Nag filed an

application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for

prosecution of the petitioners for the offences against public justice and for the

offences relating to documents given in evidence. The said application under

Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was numbered as Misc. Case

No.16 of 2019. During the pendency of the said Misc. Case No.16 of 2019,

Sohan Nag died. The writ petitioners filed a petition dated 07.02.2023 with a

prayer that since the said Sohan Nag has died, hence, Misc. Case No.16 of 2019

be dismissed/dropped. On the other hand, the legal heirs of the deceased

Sohan Nag who were the respondents of this Writ Petition (Cr.) filed an

application to substitute them in place of Sohan Nag to prosecute the

miscellaneous case. The writ petitioners did not file any written objection to the

said application filed by the legal heirs of Sohan Nag. By the impugned order,

the Labour Court, Jamshedpur has taken note of the provisions of Section 302

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 2A(2) as well as Section 10(8) of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947; and after discussing the fact and law, allowed the

petition dated 07.02.2023 filed by the legal heirs of Sohan Nag to substitute

themselves in Misc. Case No.16 of 2019.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application under

Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of which Misc. Case

No.16 of 2019 was registered by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur has to be

disposed of in accordance with the provisions of law contained in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 and there is absolutely no provision in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 permitting substitution of legal heirs of an

applicant/complainant. Hence, it is submitted that it was not open for the

Labour Court, Jamshedpur to substitute the legal representatives. It is next

submitted that upon the death of Sohan Nag, it was incumbent upon the

Labour Court, Jamshedpur to drop the proceeding but it has committed a

grave illegality by permitting substitution of Sohan Nag by his legal

representatives. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners

that the Misc. Case No.16 of 2019 arising out of Industrial Dispute No.06 of

2015 can be termed as a proceeding "arising out" of Industrial Dispute but

cannot be termed as a proceeding "in relation" to industrial dispute, so, taking

aid of Section 10(8) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 by the Labour Court,

Jamshedpur is fallacious. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in

this Writ Petition (Cr.) be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand vehemently

opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in this Writ Petition (Cr.) and

submits that if at all the petitioners were aggrieved by the impugned order, the

remedy of the petitioners was to file an appeal under Section 341 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. Hence, this Writ Petition (Cr.) is not maintainable. It is

lastly submitted that, this Writ Petition (Cr.), being without any merit, be

dismissed.

6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going

through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here

that it will be profitable to refer to Section 10 (8) of the Industrial Dispute Act,

which reads as under:-

"10. Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals.--(8) No proceedings pending before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal in relation to an industrial dispute shall lapse merely by reason of the death of any of the parties to the dispute being a workman, and such Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall complete such proceedings and submit its award to the appropriate Government." (Emphasis supplied)

the plain reading of Section 10 (8) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 makes

it amply clear that the same provided that no proceeding pending before inter

alia a Labour Court in relation to an industrial dispute shall lapse merely by

reason of death of any of the parties to the dispute being a workman.

7. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners

that Misc. Case No.16 of 2019 "arises out" of the Industrial Dispute No.06 of

2015 but is not "in relation" to Industrial Dispute is concerned, it is pertinent to

mention here that the word 'arise' has been defined by Black's Law Dictionary

12th Edition as "to originate; to stem from" and the word 'related' has been

defined in the said dictionary as "connected in some way; having relationship

to or with something else". Thus, it is crystal clear from the reading of the

words 'arising out of' generally indicates a word having direct or proximate

connection or possession while 'related to' subjects a broader, less direct

connection or association. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that

'arising out of' is a subset of the word 'related to'. Hence, this Court is not

accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that even if a

case arises out of some other case, it may not be termed as "related to" the

other case.

8. As the Misc. Case No.16 of 2019 has undisputedly "arisen out" of

Industrial Dispute No.06 of 2015, this Court has no hesitation in holding that

the Labour Court, Jamshedpur has not committed any illegality by treating the

Misc. Case No.16 of 2019 "related to" Industrial Dispute Case No.06 of 2015

and consequently, taking the aid of Section 10 (8) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 by not allowing the Misc. Case No.06 of 2015 to lapse; merely by the

reason of death of the workman namely Sohan Nag. Otherwise also, by now, it

is a settled principle of law by so many judicial pronouncements of various

High Courts that notwithstanding the absence of any specific provision, legal

heirs can be substituted in place of a complainant in complaint case to pursue

prosecution upon the death of the complainant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in the case of Rani Kusum(Smt) vs. Kanchan Devi(Smt) & Others

reported in (2005) 6 SCC 705 had the occasion to consider the applicability of

procedural law by observing as under in para-10, 12 and 14; which read as

under:-

"10. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice.

12. The processual law so dominates in certain systems as to overpower substantive rights and substantial justice. The humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a residuary power in the judges to act ex debito justitiae where the tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence, processual, as much as substantive. (See Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar [(1975) 1 SCC 774] .)

14. Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice." (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, it is crystal clear from the said judgment that the rules of

procedure being handmaid of justice in an adversarial system, no party should

ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice

dispensation unless compelled by the express and specific language of the

statute.

9. A Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Agarwal

& Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in (2003) 2 JLJR 368 did

not allow the prayer for discharge of the accused because of death of the

complainant in a complaint involving the offence punishable under Section 138

of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that the cognizance was barred by

limitation and observed that mere death of a complainant cannot ipso facto

terminate criminal proceeding by relying upon the judgment in the case of

Ashok Kumar vs. Abdul Latif reported in 1989 CrLJ 1856.

10. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Raasi Cements Limited vs.

Prithiviraj reported in 1997 0 Supreme (Mad) 880 was also of the view that it is

reasonable for a Magistrate Court to entertain an application for substitution of

a representative in respect of a private company to prosecute it as complainant