Allowed

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

Jharkhand HC3 Nov 2023Cr.M.P./416/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings initiated under Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The judgment quashed the order taking cognizance, noting it was not a penal provision and the order lacked judicial application of mind.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding, including the order taking cognizance dated 31.10.2013, was quashed.

Anil Kumar Dutta Alias Sri a K Dutta Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 416 of 2014

¶3

Anil Kumar Dutta @ Sri A.K. Dutta ..... … Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand.

¶5

Brijvir Singh, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central-II), Dhanbad and Katrasgarh, Dhanbad. ..... … Opposite Parties

¶6

¶7

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶8

-----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. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, C.G.C. ------

¶9

04/ 03.11.2023 Heard Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned C.G.C. appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

¶10

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 31.10.2013, 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. 413 of 2013, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad.

¶11

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

¶12

therein:-

¶13

(a) 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 WJ Area of BCCL at Moonidih. (b) The General Manager, WJ 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.

¶14

(c) The General Manager, WJ Area Moonidih of BCCL failed to reply to the letter dated 12.05.2011 and accordingly a Show cause notice dated 17/20.06.2011 was issued to him.

¶15

(d) In response to the notice, the General Manager submitted his show cause dated 23/24.06.2011 informing him that no Woks Committee has been constituted as they already have consultative committee, safety committee, welfare committee etc.

¶16

(e) A show cause dated 17/18.12.2012 followed and in response to the said notice, the General Manager, WJ Area by his letter dated

¶17

-2-

¶18

14.01.2013 intimated that since the Area has consultative committee, safety committee, welfare committee etc. they are not constituting a works committee.

¶19

(f) Under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the ID Act the accused persons is responsible for constituting a works committed, as he is engaging more than 100 workers.

¶20

(g) 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

-3-

¶25

been passed by the Government of India or not. Looking into the order taking cognizance dated 31.10.2013, 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 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.

¶26

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 31.10.2013, 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. 413 of 2013, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad, are hereby, quashed.

¶27

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

¶28

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶29

Amitesh/-

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Dutta Alias Sri a K Dutta 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

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.

Binod Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

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

Arun Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.