Karnataka High Court

Abdul Basit S/O Abdul Aziz vs The Manager-P And A on 17 February, 2022

Bench: V Srishananda

                           1



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                       BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

     CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200044/2020


BETWEEN:

ABDUL BASIT, S/O. ABDUL AZIZ
AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: RTD. EMPLOYEE
R/O. QTR NO.ATR 29/2,
JAYPEE CEMENT COLONY
SHAHABAD - 585 228
TQ: CHITTAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI.     ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI RAJA VENKATAPPA NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE MANAGER-P & A
       JAYPEE CEMENT CORPORATION LTD.
       (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ZAWAR CEMENT LTD.)
       SHAHABAD, TQ: CHITTAPUR
       DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 102

2.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
       SHAHABAD POLICE STATION
       REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA
       KALABURAGI BENCH.        ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI R.S. SIDHAPURKAR, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP FOR R2)
                                   2




     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.11.2019, ON THE FILE
OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI
DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.28/2015 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER HEREIN AS ACCUSED CONFIRMING THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 27.04.2015 PASSED IN C.C.NO.71/2013
BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AT SHAHABAD, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON
FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING :

                           ORDER

Though the matter is listed for orders today, with the

consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. Heard Sri Raja Venkatappa Naik, learned

counsel for the appellant, Sri R.S.Sidhapurkar, learned

counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar,

learned HCGP for respondent-2/State.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

The petitioner was an ex-employee of the first

respondent company - Jaypee Cement Corporation Ltd.,

(Formerly known as Zawar Cement Ltd.) and as a part of

employment perquisites, a quarter bearing No.ATR-29/2

(hereinafter referred to as 'the said quarter' for short) in

J.P.Colony, Shahabad Taluk, Kalaburagi District was given

for occupation of the Revision Petitioner. The petitioner

retired from the service on 13.04.2004, but continued with

the occupation of the said quarter. The first respondent-

Company initiated action under Section 630(2) of the

Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'

for short) against the Revision Petitioner herein. The

petitioner challenged the same before the learned

Magistrate contending that the first respondent-Company

did not have right to initiate action under Section 630(2) of

the Act and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

4. As a defence, the Revision Petitioner also

raised that when the first respondent Company took the

unit, in a Court auction as per the orders passed by the

DRT, Kolkata, Company was required to pay the arrears of

the wages. The same was not paid and therefore, the

petitioner has got right to reaming in quarter till the wages

are paid.

5. The Trial Magistrate after considering the oral

and documentary evidence on record, recorded a

categorical finding that the revision Petitioner was an

employee and post retirement, he cannot withhold the said

quarter and then allowed the petition filed under Section

630(2) of the Act by judgment dated 27.04.2014 passed in

C.C.No.71/2013.

6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the

Revision Petitioner approached the District Court in

Criminal Appeal No.28/2015. The learned Judge in the First

Appellate Court after securing the records and considering

the material evidence on record re-appreciated the same

and by judgment dated 30.11.2019 dismissed the appeal

and confirmed the order passed by the learned trial

Magistrate.

7. Being aggrieved by the same, the Revision

Petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition with

following grounds:

x Because the impugned final judgment and order passed by the Ld. Appellate Court suffers from error of law ignoring the material facts that the petitioner was an employee in erstwhile Association Cement Corporation (ACC) Company Shahabad, Taluka Chitapur, District Gulbarga, which was subsequently purchased by Jawahar Cement Company and there were 858 employees on account of closure of HMP cement factory Shahabad, dispute arose under Section 25(o) (6) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and it was referred to Dy. Commissioner of labour, Gulbarga region, Gulbarga and application of the workers filed on 03.02.2003 under Section 33(c) (1) and Dy. Labour Commissioner passed the award and on 26.06.1984, issued the recovery certificate to the Dy. Commissioner, Gulbarga amounting to Rs.30,75,71,335.00 as such the said Recovery Certificate dated 18.03.2003 annexed as Annexure P-2 with this petition attained finality as it is not challenged by management of HMP cement factory Ltd. Shahabad and till to date the

petitioner has not received wages to the tune of Rs.3,68,085/- and further in case of the Ld. Appellate Court/IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi and thereby deprived the petitioner claim from receiving wages and thereby caused failure of justice.

x Because the Ld. Appellate Court and IV Addl. Sessions Judge omitted and ignored the important material evidence that the petitioner worked as Miller in Kiln Department and he has retired on 13.04.2004 and the Jawahar Cement Ltd. has purchased ACC plant through auction conducted by Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Kolkota on 28.11.2006 and further name of Jawahar Cement Pvt. Ltd., on 18.1.2011 and after purchase from HMP cement company that Jawahar Cement Company would undertake liability to pay the entire dues to the labours. It is also admitted that till to date no wages are paid in favour of the employees as agreed by respondent's company before the DRT-III Kolkata and it is also admitted that uptill the entire dues are not paid and therefore the possession would remain with the DRT-III Kolkata and the Hon'ble Tribunal exercising powers under Section 529(1) clause (c)

of Companies Act ought to have directed the company to pay the entire dues as per the order dated 2.12.2005 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-III Kolkata in case No.RA/1/2004 passed the order at para 50 of the order of Debt Recovery Tribunal is reproduced as under;

"Hence, it is also being ordered that the respondent certificate debtor No.1 shall pay to the 858 workmen on record their wages in terms of certificate recovery issued by Industrial Disputes Commissioner under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act No.XIV of 1947) alongwith an interest amount to be calculated at the existing Bank rate of 10.75% (10.75 percent) (simple) per annum on the certificate amount from the date of issuance of the last certificate till realization within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of such order and shall thereafter file one affidavit of compliance, failing to pay the above workmen their arrears wages this tribunal shall invoke the relevant provisions as laid down in Recovery of Debts. Due to Banks and financial institutions Act (Act No.L1 of 1993) against the said respondent

certificate debtor; and the learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal is being directed to submit before this Tribunal one report of recovery within the same period."

And till today no payment is made although this material fact has been substantiated and without issue of directions by the Ld. Appellate Court, to the respondent Company for deposit of the award and payment of wages to the petitioner, directed the petitioner to vacate the premises suffers from error of law.

x Because the Ld. Appellate Court failed to appreciate that if there is agreement between the management and the employees it is binding under Section 630 of Companies Act and therefore the offence under Section 630 imposed and convicted against the petitioner suffer from perversity and therefore, required interference under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.

Citation SCC 1999-1-119 Jagadish Chandra Nijhawan Vs. S.K.Saraf x Because under Section 529(A) & 530 of the Companies Act, 2002 reproduced hereunder;

529A. 4 Overriding preferential payments (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act or any other law for the time being in force in the winding up of a company-

(a) workmen' s dues; and

(b) debts due to secured creditors to the extent such debts rank under clause (c) of the proviso to sub- section (1) of section 529 pari passu with such dues, shall be paid in priority to all other debts.

(2) The debts payable under clause (a) and clause

(b) of sub- section (1) shall be paid in full, unless the assets are insufficient to meet them, in which case they shall abate in equal proportions.]

530. Preferential payments.

(1) In a winding up, 5 subject to the provisions of section 529A, there shall be paid] in priority to all other debts-

(a) all revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due from the company to the Central or a State Government or to a local authority at the relevant date as defined in clause (c) of sub- section (8), and having become due and payable within the twelve months next before that date;

(b) all wages or salary (including wages payable for time or piece work and salary earned wholly or in part by way of commission) of any employee, in respect of services rendered to the company and due for a period not exceeding four months within the twelve months next before the relevant date 1 subject to the limit specified in sub- section (2);

(c) all accrued holiday remuneration becoming payable to any employee, or in the case of his death to any other person in his right, on the termination of his employment before, or by the effect of, the winding up order or resolution;

(d) unless the company is being wound up voluntarily merely for the purposes of reconstruction or of amalgamation with another company, all amounts due, in respect of contributions payable during the twelve months next before the relevant date, by the company as the employer of any persons, under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 .) or any other law for the time being in force;

(e) unless the company is being wound up voluntarily merely for the purposes of reconstruction or of amalgamation with another

company, or unless the company has, at the commencement of the winding up, under such a contract with insurers as is mentioned in section 14 of the Workmen' s Compensation Act, 1923 , (8 of 1923 .) rights capable of being transferred to and vested in the workman, all amounts due in respect of any compensation or liability for compensation under the said Act in respect of the death or disablement of any employee of the company;

(f) all sums due to any employee from a provident fund, a pension fund a gratuity fund- or any other fund for the welfare of the employees, maintained by the company; and

(g) the expenses of any investigation held in pursuance of section 235 or 237, in so far as they are payable by the company.

Claim of the employee would be considered first preference and justice is done in the interest and welfare of the employees which is ignored by Ld. IV Addl. Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi, and therefore required interference by the Hon'ble High Court under Section 397 and 482 of Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice and equity.

Citation

2015 AIAR (Criminal) 822 Chandra Babu @ Moses vs. State through Inspector of Police and Others

KCCR short 256 in the case of Diwakar Vs. S.Krishnamurthy The Hon'ble Single Bench held as under;

"High Court shall exercise only in exception cases wherein glaring procedural defect is found or an error in manifest or there has been flagrant miscarriage of justice".

x Because the Ld. Appellate Court committed grave injustice by issue of orders directing the petitioner to vacate the quarter without calling upon the company to deposit the wages and gratuity as per Recovery Certificate and claim made by the petitioners to the tune of Rs.4,12,158/- and towards gratuity amounting Rs.88,136/- and the Ld. Appellate Court without directing the respondent company for deposit of wages and gratuity payable in favour of petitioner, the Ld. Appellate Court disposing of Criminal Appeal and thereby deprived the petitioner to claim from

receiving wages and without doing so caused manifest injustice to the petitioner and thereby violated Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

x Because whenever the company overtakes or acquires an existing company the purchasing company has to get revoke all the leave and license agreement executed by the previous company in favour of workmen. In the present case the complainant/respondent never tried for the revocation of the leave and license agreement and executed a fresh agreement, as such as complaint was not maintainable in law.

x Because the employer and employee relationship ceases only when the employee will retire from the service and no amount is retained by the employer and all claims of the employee have been fully satisfied. In the instant case till today the petitioner has not received the sum of Rs.4,12,158/- towards compensation and gratuity amounting Rs.88,136/- was not paid. Till the dues are not paid by the complainant/respondent and reporting to the Debt Recovery Tribunal Calcutta that all the dues to the tune of Rs.35,34,40,654/- as claimed by the 858 workmen as stated in para 49 and 50 of the order passed by the Ld. Debt

Recovery Tribunal Calcutta dated 02.12.2005. The Tribunal shall hold possession of the factory and the workmen who have been provide residential quarter free of cost and free accommodation from payment of electricity bill and in view of this verdict of the Ld. Debt Recovery Tribunal, complainant/respondent NO.1 do not vest powers to evict the workmen irrespective they are retired as held in the order sheet 53 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III Kolkata, therefore, initiation of recovery proceedings by the respondents No.1/complainant is unsustainable in law and Section 630 of the Companies Act is not attracted as the respondent/complainant has not produced any documents to hold that entire dues payable in favour of the present petitioner and other workmen have been paid besides gratuity.

x Because the respondent has not produced about the quantified liability of the amount due to the accused and it is the duty of the Personnel and Human Resource Department to take care about the issuance of 'No Dues Certificate' and to obtain any dues from the employees. In this regard the complainant/respondent has nowhere stated about discharge of this part of duties towards the

welfare of the accused and other employees. The complainant's company has purchased the Shahbad Cement Factory with its liability and it is bounden duty of the complainant' company to discharges its liability towards the workmen including the accused. The complainant company has failed to produce documents in support of its claim of quarter held by the accused and also failed to prove that it has paid all the arrears of salary from 7.12.1997 to 31.12.2002 and death cum-retirement benefits as it has stepped into the shoes of previous company with respect to the liabilities, towards the workmen including the petitioner/accused herein.

x Because in view of the order passed by Ld. Debt Recovery Tribunal-III Kolkata as per order sheet No.34 and Order sheet No.42, Order sheet No.49 & 50 and order sheet No.53, it is stated that ill the liabilities and all payments payable in faovur of the 858 workmen, factory will be treated as a factory under the possession of this Tribunal and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court and Appellate Court held erroneous, suffers from perversity and legal infirmity on the question of jurisdiction and there has been

flagrant miscarriage of justice and an error in manifest requires interference by this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner/accused in support of humble submissions relied upon the decision of High Court of Allahabad reported in Citation (2002)7 SCC-505 (Crl.Appeal No. 960/2002 decided on 17.09.2002) In case of

1. S.K.Sarma Vs. Mahesh Kumar Verma

2. Jagadish Chandra Nijhwan Vs.

S.K.Saraf In 1999 Part I SCC Page No.119 It is observed that, the question involved in this appeal was whether before invoking the provisions of Section 138 of the Railway Act, 1890 for evicting the retired railway employee (respondent herein) from the official premises, the railway administration was required to prove that the premises in question belong to it. As per the facts of the case the Railway Department was the lessee of the premises however, failed to prove lease document in it's favour. In the present case also the complainant did not ever tried to establish that, how the

quarters in issue has been acquired by him. In support of his case, the complainant failed to produce a single document to show that, he is the owner of quarters in issue.

The accused also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagadish Chandra Nijhawan Vs. S.K.Saraf which delivered on 27th November, 1998 in which it is held that, non-vacating the company's premises shall not amounts to the offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act. The matter is in civil nature."

x Because the impugned order passed by the Courts below convicting the petitioner/accused and also directed to vacate the quarter bearing No.TRR 32/2, Jaypee Cement Colony, Shahbad inspite of the material facts substantiated as per the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III Kolkata, that as per recovery certificate passed by Ld. Dy. Labour Commissioner Gulbarga Region, Gulbarga dated 18.03.2003, arising out of Industrial Dispute At and recovery of arrears, wages amounting to Rs.30,75,71,335/- payable in favour of 858 workmen and till the clearance of dues towards payment of gratuity payable in favour of the

petitioner/accused and salary dues amounting to Rs.3,68,085/- not yet paid and till the entire wages with 10% interest not paid in favour of the petitioner/accused and 858 workmen the possession of the factory shall remain under the custody of Debt Recovery Tribunal-III Kolkata and till today the Respondent No.1/complainant failed to produce the clearance of no dues certificate and therefore, non-payment of dues towards gratuity and towards wages sustained violation of fundamental right to life and without payment of compensation and thereby violated Article 21 and 300A of the Indian Constitution. The impugned order passed by the Ld. Appellate Authority and Trial Court bearing Criminal Appeal No.35/2015 dated 27.12.2019 suffers from an error in manifest and there has been flagrant violation of miscarriage of justice and therefore, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable in law and therefore, this Hon'ble Court vested inherent powers to pass an appropriate orders under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.

Citation (2016)3 KCCR

(Karnataka Criminal and Civil Reports) S.N.256 Dinker Vs. S.Krishnamurthy

x The other legal and factual grounds will be urged at the time of final arguments."

Re-iterating the above grounds, Sri Raja Venkatappa Naik,

learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently

contended that both the Courts have not properly

appreciated the materials on record in its proper

perspective and therefore, sought for allowing the petition.

He further contended that the first respondent-Company

did not pay the wages to the Revision Petitioner, the

Revision Petitioner is entitled to continue in the said

quarter allotted to him and therefore, sought for allowing

the petition.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent

No.1 Sri R.S. Sidhapurkar and Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar,

learned High Court Government Pleader supported the

impugned judgments and sought for dismissal of the

Revision Petition.

9. In view of the rival contentions and having

regard to the scope of the Revision Petition, the following

point would arise for consideration:

"Whether the finding recorded by the Trial Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court that the accused/Revision Petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 630(2) of the Act is suffering from legal infirmity, error of jurisdiction, patent factual defect or perversity and thus calls for interference by this Court?

10. In the case on hand, Revision Petitioner being

the employee of the ACC Cement which is now taken over

by Jaypee Cement Corporation Limited is not in dispute. As

a part of employment, as a perquisite of his employment,

he was allotted the said quarter.

11. Admittedly, the Revision Petitioner retired on

13.04.2004. Despite, repeated demands, the

accused/Revision Petitioner did not vacate the premises.

Ultimately, the first respondent-Company was constrained

to take recourse to law as is found in Section 630(2) of the

Act to prosecute the Revision Petitioner.

12. In order to appreciate the material on record,

it is just and necessary for this Court to cull out Section

630 of the Act, which reads as under:

"630. Penalty for wrongful withholding of property.

(1) If any officer or employee of a company-

(a) wrongfully obtains possession of any property of a company; or

(b) having any such property in his possession, wrongfully withholds it or knowingly applies it to purposes other than those expressed or directed in the articles and authorised by this Act; he shall, on the complaint of the company or any creditor or contributory thereof, be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.

(2) The Court trying the offence may also order such officer or employee to deliver up or refund, within a time to be fixed by the Court,

any such property wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withheld or knowingly misapplied, or in default, to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years."

13. On bare reading of the above provision, it

makes it clear that soon after the employment, an

employee wrongfully withholds the property of the

Company, an action under Section 630 of the Act would

lie before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

14. Since, the Revision Petitioner retired from the

service on 13.04.2004, he is not entitled to withhold the

premises of the Company on the ground that wages are

not settled by the first respondent-Company. If at all, if

the wages are not settled by the Company, the forum for

Revision Petitioner lie elsewhere for the recovery of the

same. Learned Magistrate took note of the said fact and

after full pledged trial, recorded a categorical finding that

the demand made by the Company to vacate and hand the

said quarter to Company was not complied by the Revision

Petitioner and passed an order as under:

"Acting under Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. accused found guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.630 (2) of Indian Companies Act, 1956.

Accused is directed to vacate the quarter bearing No.ATR-29/2 situated at Jaypee Cement Colony, Shahabad and deliver the vacat possession to the complainant witthin 30 days from the date of this Order.

In default of handling over the vacant possession of the premise to the complainant, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days.

After expiry of stipulated period of 30 days, complainant is at liberty to take vacant possession of the above mentioned premises.

Supply free copy of judgment to accused."

15. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused had

preferred an appeal before the District Court in Criminal

Appeal No.28/2015. Learned Judge in the First Appellate

Court re-appreciated the materials on record and

dismissed the appeal filed by the Revision Petitioner.

16. While so dismissing the appeal, the learned

Judge in the first Appellate Court has placed reliance on

the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Smt. Asha Saxena (dead) by LR's vs. U.P. Electricity

Board and Others reported in 2011 ILR 924 and

dismissed the appeal.

17. In a similar matter, a coordinate Bench of this

Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.200047/2021 in the

case of Smt.Kashibai vs. the Manager P and A, Jaypee

Cement Corporation Limited has held as under:

"7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner herein was the employee of respondent No.1 and it is also not in dispute that he was appointed in the year 1990 and quarters which is a subject matter of the petition was allotted in favour of the husband of the petitioner herein. The fact that he was retired in the year 2003 is also not in dispute. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that dues are payable by the respondent-

company in favour of the petitioner herein towards the wages of her husband. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court to the recovery certificate issued. The learned counsel for the

respondent submits that whatever the claim they made before the Labour Officer was met and no other claim is pending. Having taken note of the factual aspects, the question before this Court is that when the wages or any benefit for which the petitioner is entitled, if it is determined, the same can be enforced before the appropriate forum. The fact that husband has retired from service and that now he is no more is also not in dispute. When such being the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner cannot squat on the property. In the case on hand, husband of the petitioner retired in the year 2003 and almost two decades have been elapsed. The private complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate in the year 2015 and an order was passed on 06.09.2016 giving thirty days time to vacate. The same was questioned in the criminal appeal. In the Criminal Appeal No.67/2016, the appellate Court reconsidered the matter on appreciation of evidence and confirmed the order of the Trial Court. Hence, the present revision petition is filed. The scope of revision is limited and the main contention is that respondent- company has not paid dues payable to the husband of the petitioner. I have already pointed out, the same can be enforced if any order has been passed in favour of the petitioner in the appropriate forum and the petitioner cannot squat on the quarters allotted in favour of her husband even though he

was retired in 2003 itself. The petitioner is squatting on the quarters from the last eighteen years without vacating the premises. I do not find any merit in the petition to invoke the revisional jurisdiction. The judgment quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts on hand. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment has discussed with regard to the breach of trust and the same is filed for breach of trust and comes to the conclusion that the matter is of civil in nature. But, in the case on hand, it is not the criminal breach of trust and civil dispute. The very proviso made under Section 630(2) of the Companies Act is when the employee failed to vacate the premises and continued in the possession unauthorizedly, the employer can invoke the provision under Section 630(2) of the Companies Act. Hence, I do not find any merit in the revision petition to set aside the order of the Trial Court as well as the order of the District and Sessions Judge, passed in Criminal Appeal No.67/2016.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Jalan's case referred to supra has made it clear that withholding the delivery of the property to the company and therefore, they are liable to be prosecuted under Section 630 of the Act and even further held that this will include anyone else who

has been inducted in possession of the property by such persons who continue to withhold the possession of premises as such person is equally responsible for withholding and non-delivery of the property of the company. When such principles are laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and when the petitioner's husband being the former employee of the company is bound to quit and vacate the premises in favour of the respondent-company and the petitioner being the wife of former employee of the respondent cannot withhold the vacating of the quarters."

18. So also, this Court in Criminal Revision Petition

No.20058/2021 followed the dictum of Co-ordinate bench

of this Court in the case of Kashibai referred to supra.

19. The facts of the present case are practically

similar to the facts found in Kashibai's case and that of

Bhimsab's Case referred to supra.

20. However, since the Revision Petitioner has

specifically contended before this Court that there is huge

arrears of wages to be paid by the first respondent-

Company to him, reserving liberty for the Revision

Petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery

of wages, this Court is of the considered opinion that the