Allowed

Sudip Kumar Mukhopadhyay Alias S K Mukhopadhyay v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC9 Nov 2023Cr.M.P./328/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated for non-constitution of a Works Committee under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court held the order of cognizance was mechanical and impacted by a pending exemption application before the MP High Court.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 02.08.2013 in ID Case No. 241/2013.

Sudip Kumar Mukhopadhyay Alias S K Mukhopadhyay… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr.M.P. No. 328 of 2014

¶4

Sudip Kumar Mukhopadhyay @ S.K. Mukhopadhyay

¶5

.... …Petitioner

¶6

Versus The State of Jharkhand & Another ..... …Opposite Parties

¶7

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioner:-Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Pawan Kumar Pathak, C.G.C

¶10

05/ Dated:-09.11.2023

¶11

This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 02.08.2013 in ID Case No. 241/2013 by which cognizance has been taken under section 31(2) and Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

¶12

The complaint case was filed alleging therein that under sub section 1 of section 3 of the ID Act, 1947 read with Rule 38 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957 Works Committee is to be constituted at Govindpur Area No. III of BCCL. The General Manager, Govindpur Area by a letter dated 12.05.2011 was requested to constitute a Works Committee under the provisions of section 3 (1) of the ID Act, 1947. The General Manager, Govindpur Area BCCL failed to reply to the letter dated 12.05.2011 and accordingly a Showcause notice dated 17/20.06.2011 was issued to him. A 2nd Show-cause notice dated 17/18.12.2012 was issued to the General Manager and the General Manager by his letter dated 2/6.6.2011 and 10.01.2013 informed that he has not constituted a Works Committee as they already have consultative committee, Safety Committee, welfare committee etc. Under the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the ID Act the accused person is responsible for

¶13

¶14

constituting a Works Committee as he is engaging more than 100 workers. As the Works Committee has not been constituted a notice was issued to Show-cause within 10 days of receipt of letter as to why legal action be not initiated against him but the management has not constituted a Works Committee till date and as such the accused person is liable to be proceeded against and suitably punished.

¶15

Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if any cause of action for penalty is made out under the Industrial Disputes Act, the provision is under Sections 31 and 32 of the said Act. He submits that the Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries is working in several States that is why the order with regard to works committee was challenged by one of subsidiary company of Coal India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court for exemption under section 36(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the petition and directed the Government of India to reconsider the case of exemption. He further submits that he has no instruction as to whether further any order has been passed by the Government of India or not.

¶16

Mr. Pawan Kumar Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that the learned court has rightly taken the cognizance, as there is non-compliance of Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶17

In view of the above, it is an admitted fact that the Madhya Pradesh High Court [Annexure-4 to the petition] has allowed the petition under section 36(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act and remanded the matter to the Government to take fresh decision.

¶18

¶19

Either of the parties are not in a position to inform whether any further order has been passed by the Government of India or not. Looking into the order taking cognizance dated 02.08.2013, it appears that this order is not in accordance with law. The word ‘cognizance’ and transferee court has been filled up in blank space which suggests non-application of judicial mind. It appears that the learned court taken the cognizance in a mechanical way.

¶20

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 02.08.2013 in ID Case No. 241/2013 by which cognizance has been taken under section 31(2) and Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, are hereby, quashed.

¶21

This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶22

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶23

Satyarthi/-

Sudip Kumar Mukhopadhyay Alias S K Mukhopadhyay v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudip Kumar Mukhopadhyay Alias S K Mukhopadhyay v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binod Mahli Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baga Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shayla Shakra Alias Tamanna Vs the State of Jharkhand

N.Venkateshwar Rao Alias N.V. Venketeshwar Rao Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Birendra Kumar Bhatia Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kamlesh Kanodia Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.