Allowed

Arun Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC3 Nov 2023Cr.M.P./353/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for non-constitution of Works Committee under the Industrial Disputes Act. Court quashed proceedings noting impugned order was not in accordance with law and lacked judicial application of mind.

What did the court decide?

Entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 03.07.2013 is hereby quashed.

Arun Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr. — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 353 of 2014

¶3

Arun Kumar Singh @ A.K. Singh ..... … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand. 2. Brijvir Singh, Labour Enforcement Officer (C)-II, Dhanbad and Katrasgarh, Dhanbad ..... … Opposite Parties --------

¶6

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶7

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

¶8

07/ 03.11.2023 Heard Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Pawan Kumar Pathak, learned C.G.C. appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

¶9

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 03.07.2013, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with ID Case No. 218 of 2013, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

¶10

Complaint Case was filed by the O.P. No. 2, alleging therein:-

¶11

(a) Under sub section I 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 Kusunda Area No. VI of BCCL. (b) The General Manager, Kusunda 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.

¶12

(c) The General Manager, Kusunda Area BCCL failed to reply to the letter dated 12.05.2011 and accordingly a Showcause notice dated 26.05.2011/17.06.2011 was issued to him.

¶13

(d) The General Manager by his letter dated 25.06.2011 informed that he has not constituted a Works Committee as they already have Consultative committee, Safety Committee, welfare committee etc.

¶14

(e) Under the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the ID Act the accused

¶15

-2-

¶16

person is responsible for constituting a Works Committee as he is engaging more than 100 workers.

¶17

(i) That in spite of notices issued to the accused person the management of Kusunda Area of BCCL has not constituted a Works Committee in terms of section 3 (1), the accused person has committed an offence punishable u/s 31 (2) and 32 of the ID Act, 1947 and hence the written complaint.

¶18

Mr. A.K. Mehta, 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, whereas the learned court has taken the cognizance under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which speaks of the constitution of works committee. He submits that the Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries is working in several States that is why the said order 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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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. 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 03.07.2013, 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. Further Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of Industrial Disputes Act is

¶21

-3-

¶22

not the penal section and the penal Sections are Sections 31 and 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act and Section 29 is the Section for prosecution, if any award, passed by the competent court, is not complied. It appears that the learned court taken the cognizance in a mechanical way.

¶23

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 03.07.2013, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with ID Case No. 218 of 2013, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, are hereby, quashed.

¶24

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

¶25

Amitesh/-

Arun Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Company Limited Represented through Its Deputy Manager Vs Afsana Khatoon and Ors.

Ashok Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Shyam Sundar Dutta and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Anil Kumar Dutta Alias Sri a K Dutta Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Binod Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prem Sagar Mishra Alias P S Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.