Randeep Narang Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 4

¶2

2024:CGHC:43759

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 307 of 2019

¶6

Randeep Narang S/o Late Col. Mohanjeet Singh Narang Aged About 57 Years Currently Posted As President International (T And D) Solar ,and Cables ,kec Internatioanal Limited Rpg Hose No. 463 ,dr. Annei Besant Road Worli ,mumbai Maharashtra ., District : Mumbai, Maharashtra

¶7

Ramesh D. Chandak S/o Shri Deokisandas Chandak Aged About 72 Years Currently Member Of Board Of Director Of Kec International Limited Rpg House No. 436 Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli Mumbai Maharashtra, District : Mumbai, Maharashtra

¶8

Vimal Kejriwal S/o Late Mr. Ramballabh Kejriwal Aged About 58 Years Currently Posted As Managing Director And Chief Executive Officer, Kec International Limited Rpg House No. 463dr. Annie Besant Road Worli Mumbai Maharashtra ., District : Mumbai, Maharashtra

¶9

... Petitioners

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Inaspector Labour , Department , Goverment Of Chhattisgarh District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Labour Inspector Munimum Wages Act 1948 Office Of Labour Padadhikari ,surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Appellant : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Saurabh Dangi, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Neeta Tulsani Thawani, PL

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶16

Order on Board.

¶17

Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSHKUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:2024.11.26 11:16:18 +0530

¶18

2 / 4

¶19

11/11/2024

¶20

1. The petitioners have filed the present CrMP assailing the order dated 08.01.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Labour Court Ambikapur in case No. 448/MWA/2015 by which the trial Court has directed for appearance of accused for recording of the plea.

¶21

2. Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are resident of Mumbai, as such it is not possible for them to attend each and every hearing of the case, therefore, they are exempted from appearance. He would further submit that the order dated 08.01.2019 is illegal and deserves to be quashed as initiation of prosecution is also bad in law as per Section 22B (2)(b) of Minimum Wages Act 1948. He would further submit that the complaint was filed on 24.04.2015 whereas inspection was carried out by the Labour Officer on 18.02.2015 i.e. after exhausting period of limitation of six months in filing complaint thus he would pray for quashing of the proceeding.

¶22

3. To substantiate his submission, he has referred the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi Food Limited and another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749, Azim H. Premji vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2010 SCC Online Chh 22, Ramraj Singh vs. State of M.P. (2009) 6b SCC 729, Nalin Thakor and others vs. State of Gujarat and others 2003 (12) SCC 461, Punjab National Bank and others vs. Surendra Prasad Sinha (1993) Supp (1) SCC 499, Bhaskar Industries Ltd. ;Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd (2001) 7 SCC 401, Geeta Sethi vs. The State (CBI) 2001 SCC Online Del 258, Aneeta Hada vs. God father Travels and Tours Private Limited (2012) 5 SCC 661 and priyavrat Singh & Ors vs. Shyam Ji Sahay 2008 (30 SCC Criminal 463.

¶23

3 / 4

¶24

4. Per contra learned State counsel opposes the submission and would submit that the petitioners have remedy of filing Criminal revision/ Criminal Miscellaneous petition before Industrial Court and as per Section 64-A of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relation Act or Section 11 D of the Industrial Dispute Act as amended for State of Chhattisgarh which is as under:-

¶25

64-A. Saving of inherent powers of Industrial Court and Labour Court-Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Industrial Court and the Labour Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of these Courts. And

¶26

Section 11 D of the I.D. Act 1947 reads as under:-

¶27

11D- Powers of Industrial Court hearing appeal under Section 11 D:- in respect of offence punishable under this Act and the Acts specified in part B of the second Schedule, Industrial Court hearing appeal under Section 11 C shall have all the powers of the High Court and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 1974) and shall follow such procedure as it may think fit in disposing of the appeal. M.P. Act 43 of 1981(w.e.f. 2 6.1.1982).

¶28

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶29

6. In view of the fact that the petitioners have alternate remedy of filing Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 64 A of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relation Act, 1960 or Section 11 D of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947, I am of the view that the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable. Accordingly, present CRMP is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to take recourse available to him under the Chhattisgarh Industrial Act or Industrial Dispute Act as the case may be. However, liberty is also granted to the petitioners to move an application for grant of permanent injunction to the accused as per Section 205 of the CrPC as per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶30

4 / 4

¶31

the case of Bhaskar (supra), Tarsem Lal vs. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office (2024) 7 SCC 61, Puneet Dalmia vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Hyderabad 2020(12) SCC 695 and Rameshwar

¶32

Yadav and Others vs. State of Bihar and another (2018) 4 SCC 608.

¶33

7. In the eventuality of filing of the application for grant of permanent injunction under Section 205 of the CrPC learned Judicial Magistrate cum Labour Court will consider the application of the petitioners in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶34

8. With this direction the writ petition is disposed of.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶37

Judge

¶38

Santosh

Randeep Narang v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Randeep Narang v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghuwar Sai Vs Shri Alok Shukla

Ibrahim Khan Vs Shri Avinash Champavat

Ku. Seema Rathore Vs Abinash Mishra

Raja Ram Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deenanath Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Akhilesh Namdev Vs Shahban Khan and Others