Ranbir Singh vs State Of Haryana & Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 5648 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ranbir Singh vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2024

                                     Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038457


                                                                 2024:PHHC:038457
CRM-A-1043-MA-2013 and other connected cases                                 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                                CRM-A-1043-MA-2013(O&M)
                                                Reserved on: 11.03.2024
                                                Pronounced on:13.03.2024
Ranbir Singh
                                                               ...Applicant-Appellant

                                       Versus

State of Haryana and another
                                                               ...Respondents

                        CRM-A-1044-MA-2013 (O&M)

Rishi Pal
                                                               ...Applicant-Appellant

                                       Versus

State of Haryana and another
                                                               ...Respondents

                        CRM-A-305-MA-2013 (O&M)

Karambir Singh
                                                               ...Applicant-Appellant

                                       Versus

State of Haryana and another
                                                               ...Respondents

                        CRM-A-1094-MA-2013 (O&M)
Tirlok Chand
                                                               ...Applicant-Appellant

                                       Versus

State of Haryana and another
                                                               ...Respondents

                        CRM-A-223-MA-2014 (O&M)

Jai Kumar
                                                               ...Applicant-Appellant

                                       Versus
State of Haryana and another
                                                               ...Respondents



                                    1 of 7
                 ::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2024 21:58:32 :::
                                      Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038457


                                                                 2024:PHHC:038457
CRM-A-1043-MA-2013 and other connected cases                                 2

                        CRM-A-1038-MA-2013 (O&M)

Santosh Ghosh
                                                               ...Applicant-Appellant

                                       Versus

State of Haryana and another
                                                               ...Respondents

                        CRM-A-1016-MA-2013 (O&M)
Ishwar Singh
                                                               ...Applicant-Appellant

                                       Versus

State of Haryana and another
                                                               ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

                                             ***

Present:    Mr. D.S. Adlakha, Advocate
            for the applicant-appellant(s)

            Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate
            for respondent No. 2

            Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG Haryana

                                             ***

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

CRM-49272-2017 in CRM-A-1043-MA-2013

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

seeking condonation of a delay of 6 days in filing the application under Section

378(4) of the Cr.P.C.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed

and delay of 6 days in filing the said application is condoned.

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038457

2024:PHHC:038457 CRM-A-1043-MA-2013 and other connected cases 3

CRM-49273-2013 in CRM-A-1044-MA-2013

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

seeking condonation of a delay of 5 days in filing the application under Section

378(4) of the Cr.P.C.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed

and delay of 5 days in filing the said application is condoned.

CRM-29892-2013 in CRM-A-305-MA-2013

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

seeking condonation of a delay of 18 days in filing the application under Section

378(4) of the Cr.P.C.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed

and delay of 18 days in filing the said application is condoned.

CRM-50420-2013 in CRM-A-1094-MA-2013

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

seeking condonation of a delay of 17 days in filing the application under Section

378(4) of the Cr.P.C.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed

and delay of 17 days in filing the said application is condoned.

CRM-4898-2014 in CRM-A-223-MA-2014

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

seeking condonation of a delay of 15 days in filing the application under Section

378(4) of the Cr.P.C.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038457

2024:PHHC:038457 CRM-A-1043-MA-2013 and other connected cases 4

and delay of 15 days in filing the said application is condoned.

CRM-49262-2013 in CRM-A-1038-MA-2013

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

seeking condonation of a delay of 6 days in filing the application under Section

378(4) of the Cr.P.C.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed

and delay of 6 days in filing the said application is condoned.

CRM-48173-2013 in CRM-A-1016-MA-2013

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

seeking condonation of a delay of 9 days in filing the application under Section

378(4) of the Cr.P.C.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed

and delay of 9 days in filing the said application is condoned.

CRM-A-1094-MA-2013 and 6 connected cases

1. This common order shall dispose of all seven of the above-

mentioned cases as they arise from the similar factual matrix. However, for the

sake of brevity, facts are culled out from CRM-A-1094-MA-2013.

2. The present application has been preferred against the judgment of

acquittal dated 09.09.2013 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Karnal in criminal complaint no. 27 dated 06.02.2008 filed under

Section 32 and 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter 'the Act') for

commission of offence under Section 25-U, punishable under Section 25-T of

the Act.

3. Briefly, the facts are that the applicant-appellant is a workman of

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038457

2024:PHHC:038457 CRM-A-1043-MA-2013 and other connected cases 5

M/s Liberty Enterprises (hereinafter 'the firm') which is owned and occupied by

respondent no.2-Adarsh Gupta. There was a dispute going on between M/s

Liberty, Kutail, M/s Liberty Shoes Ltd., M/s Liberty Marketing Division

Limited, Karnal and the workers union working in these establishment. On

22.12.2006, a settlement was arrived at between the workmen and the firm

whereby the firm had agreed to take back all the workmen between 22.12.2006

to 31.12.2006.

Accordingly, the management started taking back the workmen in

the three firms. However, the management started to transfer the certain

workmen to other establishments. The applicant-appellant alleges that he was

maliciously transferred to a place where no factory was in existence.

4. A show cause notice dated 30.10.2007 was issued by the competent

authority, however the reply to the same was found to be unsatisfactory.

Therefore, after obtaining the necessary sanction from the competent authority,

the concerned Labour Inspector filed the complaint (supra). After assessing all

the material available on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent-

accused vide judgment dated 09.09.2013.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant contends that the

learned trial Court has failed to consider that the documentary evidence itself

proves that the workmen were maliciously transferred by the management to a

place where the factory did not exist. Further, the ocular version of the

complainant is fully corroborated by the testimony of CW4-Ranbir Singh. The

malicious transferring of workmen from manufacturing units of Gharounda to

Sonipat amounts to unfair labour practice which is a punishable offence under

the Act. Moreover, on 16.10.2007, the representatives of the firm had stated in

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038457

2024:PHHC:038457 CRM-A-1043-MA-2013 and other connected cases 6

writing that 'there is no business of any type and no work is being done by the

firm' which makes the deemed closure apparent in spite of the fact that the

application filed by the firm under Section 25-O of the Act was rejected by the

government.

6. He further contends that the workmen who were creating nuisance

and played a negative role during the strike were transferred further

corroborating the malicious nature of the transfers. The enquiry report (Ex.

CW1/D), report dated 12.07.2007 (Ex. CW2/H) as well as the statements of

CW1- Paramjeet Singh, Deputy Labour Commissioner and CW2-Anupam

Malik, Joint Labour Commissioner further corroborates the same and strengthen

the case of the prosecution.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and

after perusing the record of the case with his able assistance, it transpires that in

his cross examination, Ram Sarup, Labour Inspector could not state whether he

had visited the premises of the firm. Moreover, CW2-Anupam Malik, in his

cross-examination, has admitted that as per standing orders (Ex. R1), the

management retains the power to transfer the employees of the firm. The spot

inspection report on the basis of which closure of the unit was alleged remains

unproven as such, mere transfer of some workmen cannot be considered as

closure in terms of Section 2(cc) of the Act.

8. Furthermore, all witnesses for the prosecution have specifically

admitted that no notice was issued to respondent No. 2. It appears that the

competent authority sanctioned prosecution without ascertaining the facts of the

situation, holding an enquiry or affording an opportunity to the firm to present its

case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the alleged transfer of

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038457

2024:PHHC:038457 CRM-A-1043-MA-2013 and other connected cases 7

the workmen does not fall within the purview of unfair labour practice as

mentioned under item no. 7 of the Fifth Schedule of the Act.

9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds

that learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has failed to point out any

perversity or illegality in findings recorded by the learned trial Court which

warrants interference by this Court. As such, there is no merit in the present

applications and hence, the leave to appeal is denied.

10. Accordingly, all the above mentioned applications are disposed of in

the aforementioned terms.

                                              (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
March 13, 2024                                        JUDGE
reena


                         Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
                         Whether Reportable Yes/No




                                    7 of 7