Partly allowed

Sukhjit Pasricha., v. State, Rep. by Labour Enforcement Officer (Central).

Bombay HC7 Oct 2019WPCR/187/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the Goa High Court held that the Magistrate should reconsider an application for condoning delay in filing a complaint under the Contract Labour Act as per law, setting aside the impugned order which had initially approved the condonation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; application for condonation of delay restored to Magistrate for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Sukhjit Pasricha., Vs State, Rep. by… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 187 OF 2017.

¶4

Shri Sukhjit Pasricha,
Vice President, Hr,
Interglobe Aviation Ltd.(Indigo),
Major of Age, Indian National,
Having Office at Tower C, Level-1,
Global business Park,
M.G.Road, Gurgaon,
Haryana-India. … Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

STATE, Represented by Labour
Enforcement Officer (Central),
Dr. Mukund Building, 3rd Floor,
F. L. Gomes Road,
Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Jitendra P. Supekar with Mr. Sufiyan Sayeed, Advocates for the
Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Mahesh Amonkar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent
-State.

¶9

¶10

Coram : C. V. Bhadang & Nutan D. Sardessai, JJ. Date : 07^th October, 2019.

¶11

Oral Judgment: ( Per C. V. Bhadang, J)

¶12

 This petition in our opinion has to partly succeed on a short
count. The issue is whether the provisions of Section 473 of Cr.P.C.
would apply and whether the learned Magistrate has jurisdiction to
condone the delay in filing a complaint under the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, (Act for short). The learned
Magistrate by the impugned order dated 11.09.2017 has condoned
the delay of three days.

¶13

2. We are conscious that a delay of three days would normally be
condoned. However the question in this present petition is whether
there is lack of such jurisdiction, to condone the delay.

¶14

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P.P. Unnikrishnan
& anr. Vs. Puttiyottil Alikutty & anr., (2000) 8 SCC 131 in order
to submit that the provisions of Section 473 of Cr. P. C. would be

¶15

¶16

applicable when the period of limitation is prescribed in Chapter
XXXVI of the Code. In other words, the contention is that Section
473 of Cr.P.C. would not apply to the prosecution under the
provisions of the Contract Labour Act since there is different period
of limitation provided under the virtue of Section 27 of the Said Act.

¶17

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance
on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt. P. R.
Nagaveni Vs The State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No.
3339/2016 decided on 29.07.2016 and the decision of the Himachal
Pradesh High Court in Rajesh Pandya & anr. Vs. State of H.P. in
Cr. MMO No. 26/2014 decided on 28.04.2015. The learned
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Unnikrishnan (supra) was brought to
the notice of the learned Magistrate. However, we find from the
perusal of the impugned order that the learned Magistrate has not
referred to the said judgment. The impugned order does not find any
reference or discussion on the applicability of the provisions under
Section 473 of Cr.P.C.

¶18

5. Mr. Mahesh Amonkar, the learned Standing Counsel submits
that in that case, this Court may consider remanding the application

¶19

¶20

back to the Magistrate.

¶21

6. In the circumstances, we find it appropriate that the learned
Magistrate reconsiders the application on its own merits and in
accordance with law.

¶22

7. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order
is hereby set aside. The application for condonation of delay bearing
Criminal Misc. Application (COD) No. 15/2016/D in Labour Case
No.29/2017 is restored back to the file of the learned Magistrate for
deciding it afresh, in accordance with law.

¶23

8. The rival contentions of the parties are left open.

¶24

NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J . C.V. BHADANG , J.

¶25

MF/-

Sukhjit Pasricha., v. State, Rep. by Labour Enforcement Officer (Central).

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhjit Pasricha., v. State, Rep. by Labour Enforcement Officer (Central).

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Philcorp Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

Munnalal Halwai. Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Public Prosecutor and 2 Ors.

Munnalal Halwai. Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Public Prosecutor and 2 Ors.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru., Vs Shamsun Muktar Shaikh.

Vinod Vaigankar and Anr., Vs State, Thr. S.D.P.O., Porvorim, Saligao Police Station, Saligao and Anr.

Iqbal Ismail Virani, Thr. His Const. Attorney, Rahim Mehboob Virani., Vs Income Tax Officer and 2 Ors.