Karnataka High Court
Sadashiv S/O Gundappa vs The Manager - P And A And Anr on 3 July, 2024
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4534
CRL.RP No. 200035 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 200036 of 2017
CRL.RP No. 200107 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200035 OF 2017 (397)
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200036 OF 2017 (397)
&
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200107 OF 2017 (397)
CRL.R.P.NO.200035 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
GANGAMMA W/O LATE SHIVARAYA,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. QUARTER NO.G-5/3,
JAYPEE COLONY, SHAHABAD,
TQ: CHITTAPUR, DIST: KALABURGI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJA VENKATAPPA NAIK, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
SHILPA R AND:
TENIHALLI
Location:
HIGH
1. THE MANAGER - P AND A
COURT OF JAYPEE CEMENT CORPORATION LTD.
KARNATAKA
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS ZAWAR CEMENT LTD.)
SHAHABAD, TQ: CHITTAPUR,
DIST: KALABURAGI.
2. THE STATE THROUGH SHAHABAD P.S.
REPT. BY ADDL. SPP. KALABURAGI.
(DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.08.2017)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V. K. NAYAK , ADVOCATE FOR R1)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4534
CRL.RP No. 200035 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 200036 of 2017
CRL.RP No. 200107 of 2017
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/w SECTION 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION, SETTING
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
18.07.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI DISMISSING CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.126/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN AS
APPELLANT CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
10.12.2015 PASSED IN C.C.NO.293/2013 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE
AT SHAHABAD.
CRL.R.P.NO.200036 OF 2017 :
SADASHIV S/O GUNDAPPA,
AGE: 73 YEARS,
OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE,
R/O. QUARTER NO.H-6/4,
JAYPEE COLONY, SHAHABAD,
TQ: CHITTAPUR,
DIST: KALABURGI.
...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.
2. THE STATE THROUGH SHAHABAD P.S.
REPT. BY ADDL. SPP. KALABURAGI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.S. SIDDHAPURKAR, ADV. FOR R1;
SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W SECTION 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION, SETTING
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4534
CRL.RP No. 200035 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 200036 of 2017
CRL.RP No. 200107 of 2017
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
18.07.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI DISMISSING CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.120/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN AS
APPELLANT CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
25.11.2015 PASSED IN C.C.NO.260/2013 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE
AT SHAHABAD.
CRL.R.P.NO.200107 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
R.D.DEVAPPA S/O DURGAPPA,
AGE: 70 YEARS,
OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE,
R/O. QUARTER NO.G-6/4,
JAYPEE CEMENT COLONY,
SHAHABAD, TQ: CHITTAPUR-585 228,
DIST: KALABURGI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJA VENKATAPPA NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER - P & A,
JAYEEPEE CEMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS ZAWAR CEMENT LTD.)
SHAHABAD, TQ: CHITTAPUR,
DIST: KALABURAGI-585 211.
2. THE STATE THROUGH SHAHABAD P.S.
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST : KALABURAGI - 585 211.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.S.SIDDHAPURKAR, ADV. FOR R1;
SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, SETTING ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 28.10.2016
PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
AT KALABURAGI DISMISSING CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.35/2016
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4534
CRL.RP No. 200035 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 200036 of 2017
CRL.RP No. 200107 of 2017
FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN AS APPELLANT
CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.03.2016
PASSED IN C.C.NO.25/2012 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AT
SHAHABAD.
THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In all the above captioned three criminal revision
petitions are filed under Section 397 read with Section 401
of Cr.P.C., the grievance of the petitioners is common and
therefore, the revisions petitions are heard together and
disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners herein are ex-employees of the
first respondent and as a part of employment perquisites,
a residential accommodation was given to them in Jaypee
Cement Colony, Shahabad Taluk, Kalaburagi for their
occupation during their employment. In spite of the
petitioners retiring from service, they continued in
occupation of the quarters, which were given to them by
their employer. The first respondent - Company therefore
initiated action under Section 630(2) of the Companies Act
against the petitioners. The petitioners had challenged the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4534
same before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate
contending that the first respondent - Company did not
have any right to initiate proceedings against them under
Section 630(2) of the Companies Act and sought for
dismissal of the petitions.
3. Learned jurisdictional Magistrate rejected the
contention of the petitioners and recorded a finding that
the petitioners were the employees and post retirement
they had no right to withhold the quarters and accordingly
allowed the petitions filed by the respondent-employer
under Section 630(2) of the Companies Act. Being
aggrieved by the order passed by the jurisdictional
Magistrate allowing the petitions filed under Section
630(2) of Companies Act, the petitioners had preferred
appeals before the jurisdictional District Court and the
appellate Court vide the impugned judgments in these
revision petitions had dismissed the appeals confirming
the order passed by the learned Trial Magistrate. Being
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4534
aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this
Court.
4. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Crl.R.P.No.200047/2021 disposed of on 21.12.2021 which
was filed by similarly situated employee of the first
respondent - Company herein after taking note of similar
contentions raised by the petitioner and also after
considering the judgments which were cited on behalf of
the petitioner, has held that the employee has no right to
squat on the quarters allotted by the employer after his
retirement on the ground that the Company is liable to pay
certain dues to him.
5. Another Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Crl.R.P.No.200058/2021 disposed of on 10.01.2022 which
was also filed by a similarly situated employee of the first
respondent - Company, has dismissed the said revision
petition by a detailed order once again meeting all the
contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners therein and
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4534
also after dealing with the citations on which reliance was
placed on behalf of the petitioners.
6. The earlier order passed by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.200047/2021 in the case
of Smt.Kashibai vs. The Manager P and A Jaypee
Cement Corporation Limited disposed of on 21.12.2021
has taken note of in paragraph Nos.17 and 18 of the order
passed in Crl.R.P.No.200058/2021 and it is observed as
follows :-
"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
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4534
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
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4534
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
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4534
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
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4534
respondent cannot withhold the vacating of
the quarters."
18. The facts of the present case are
practically similar to the facts found in Kashibai's
case. It is also pertinent to note that in Kashibai's
case also the first respondent is none other than the
first respondent in the present case. Therefore, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the revision
petitioner is unable to make out a case of perversity,
legal infirmity, error of jurisdiction or patent factual
defect in the impugned judgments. Accordingly, the
above point is answered in the negative and the
following:
ORDER
Revision petition sans merit and hereby
dismissed."
7. Therefore, it is evident that the contentions
urged on behalf of the petitioners in these three petitions
and all the citations on which reliance is placed by the
learned counsel for the petitioners have been already
considered by the two Coordinate Benches of this Court
and by well reasoned orders aforesaid criminal revision
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4534
petitions filed by similarly situated other retired employees
of the first respondent - Company, have been already
dismissed. Therefore, I do not find any merit in these
criminal revision petitions. Accordingly, following order is
passed:
ORDER
The criminal revision petitions are dismissed.
In view of disposal of main petitions, pending
applications, if any, do not survive for consideration.
Accordingly, they are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
