Allowed

Sri R. Mohandas v. Sri Devadasan

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2021CRL.RP/316/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka accepted a compromise petition filed between the accused petitioner and the complainant respondent in a criminal case. The dispute settled for Rs. 25 lakhs. Consequently, the court allowed the criminal revision petition and set aside the conviction and sentence.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; compoanise petition accepted; impugned conviction and sentence set aside; Labour Court award held satisfied.

Sri R. Mohandas Vs Sri Devadasan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.316 OF 2015

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.R.MOHANDAS AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS SON OF LATE.SRI.R.RAGHAVAN PILLAI REGISTRAR, SINCE RETIRED MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE BENGALURU-560 012.

¶9

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ‘SRIPADAM’, NO.2, 1^ST ‘C’ MAIN MUTHYALA NAGAR BENGALURU-560 054. (BY SRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI.DEVADASAN SON OF AMARDAMAL NO.1175, 2^ND MAIN 6^TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010. (BY SRI.A.J.SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2015 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, F.T.C-X, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.470 OF 2014 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ORDER DATED 24.04.2014 PASSED BY THE VII A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.35948/2011 (ANNEXURE-B) CONVICTING AND SENTENCING THE PETITIONER.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING AT DHARWAD BENCH, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The revision petitioner-accused is before this Court being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.04.2014 passed in C.C. No.35948/2011 by the learned VII Additional CMM, Bengaluru (for short ‘the trial Court’) for the offence punishable under Section 29 of the Industrial Dispute Act (for short ‘I.D. Act’) and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to pay fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days, which was confirmed by the judgment dated 05.03.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.470/2014 by the

¶19

¶20

learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-X at Bengaluru (for short ‘the Appellate Court’), in dismissing the appeal.

¶21

Brief facts of the case as per complaint are that, the complainant Sri.R.Devadasan, joined the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Institute’) on 24.01.1978 as a Mechanic and was having unblemished service records, but the Institute refused the employment with effect from 03.05.1993. The workman approached the Labour Court on 10.06.1993 seeking his re-instatement to his original position and for backwages. The Labour Court allowed the claim vide award dated 01.02.2001 directing the Institute to re-instate the workman into service with 50% of backwages from the date of refusal to work i.e. , 03.05.1993 till the date of his re-instatement with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. The Institute challenged the order of the Labour Court by filing Writ Petition No.38773/2001, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The Management of the Institute preferred Writ Appeal No.634/2007 before the learned Division Bench, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 13.06.2008. Even after dismissal of the writ

¶22

¶23

appeal, the Management of the Institute never bothered to comply with the direction issued by the Labour Court. Therefore, the complainant approached the Labour Commissioner seeking sanction to prosecute the Institute represented by its Registrar/Director. The Labour Commissioner after hearing both the parties passed the order on 17.07.2009 permitting the complainant to prosecute the Institute. Accordingly, the complainant initiated proceedings under Section 29 of the I.D. Act before the trial Court.

¶24

The trial Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused to answer the plea. The accused being the Registrar of the Institute pleaded not guilty for the charges leveled against him. The complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 in support of his contention. The accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and got examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D.1 to D.18 in support of his defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record proceeded to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 29 of the I.D. Act, after forming

¶25

¶26

an opinion that the complainant is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the above said offence.

¶27

Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused preferred appeal before the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.470/2014. The Appellate Court once again considering the material on record came to the conclusion that there are no merits in the appeal and the same was dismissed by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of appeal, the accused is before this Court seeking to set aside both the judgments in the interest of justice.

¶28

The respondent-complainant has appeared before this Court represented by his counsel.

¶29

Heard learned Senior counsel Sri.Uday Holla for Sri.Vivek Holla, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.A.J.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶30

After addressing the arguments, both the learned counsel sought time to explore possibility of settling the dispute between

¶31

¶32

the parties. Both the parties have submitted a compromise petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on 09.04.2021 setting out the terms of compromise between the parties. However, the compromise could not be recorded till date.

¶33

Today, the learned Senior counsel, Sri.Uday Holla along with the instructing counsel for the petitioner, petitioner and the respondent are present through video conference. Similarly, the learned counsel for the respondent Sri.A.J.Srinivasan is also connected through video conference. Parties present through video conference are identified by their respective counsels. Both the parties in unison submitted that they have settled the dispute between them as per the terms of the compromise petition. Both the parties and the learned counsel admitted the terms of the compromise and pray for disposal of the petition in terms of the compromise petition.

¶34

The terms of the compromise petition are as under:

¶35

“2. During the pendency of the above petition, the parties by mutual negotiation and deliberation have arrived at a settlement in order to give a quietus to the entire

¶36

¶37

controversy which has been pending since long time in the following terms and conditions.

¶38

3. The Respondent has agreed to receive an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) from the Indian Institute of Science in full and final settlement of all his claims against the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore as well as the petitioner herein and in terms of and in compliance of the award dated 15.02.2001 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D.No.106/1993.

¶39

4. The Petitioner’s Counsel has handed over Xerox copy of the Bankers Cheque bearing No.340408 dated 09.04.2021 drawn on State Bank of India, IISc Branch, Bangalore, for Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) to the Counsel for the respondent. Copy of the same is produced herewith. The original of the said Bankers Cheque will be handed over to the counsel for the respondent on the day this compromise petition is accepted by this Hon’ble Court.

¶40

5. The Respondent hereby assures and undertakes that he shall have no further claims or rights against the petitioner herein or against the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore or any officer of the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.

¶41

6. The Respondent hereby specifically assures and agrees that the award dated 15.02.2001 passed by the Hon’ble Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D.No.106/1993 stands fully complied with by the Indian

¶42

¶43

Institute of Science in letter and spirit on receipt of the Bankers Cheque as aforementioned.

¶44

7. The Respondent hereby seeks leave of this Hon’ble Court to withdraw the Private Complaint which was registered as C.C.No.35948/2011 on the file of the Court of the VII-ACMM Bangalore filed against the petitioner herein.

¶45

8. The Respondent hereby agrees that consequent upon the withdrawal of C.C.No.35948/2011 on the file of the Court of the VII-ACMM Bangalore by the respondent, the order of conviction dated 24.04.2014 passed under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Court of the VII ACMM, Bangalore in C.C.No.35948/2011 and order dated 05.03.2015 passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-X, Bengaluru City in Criminal Appeal No.470/2014 confirming the order of conviction dated 24.04.2014 passed by the Court of the VII ACMM, Bangalore in C.C.No.35948/2011 would not survive and are therefore liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court.

¶46

committed any offence under Section 29 or under Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence the above criminal revision petition may please be allowed in its entirety and consequently the order of conviction dated 24.04.2014 passed under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Court of the VII ACMM, Bangalore in CC No.35948/2011 and order dated 05.03.2015 passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-

¶47

¶48

X, Bengaluru City in Criminal Appeal No.470/2014 be set aside.

¶49

10. Both the parties hereby pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the respondent to spread over the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- now paid under this settlement from 03.05.1993 to 31.07.2014 to enable the respondent to avail the benefits of relief under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act. This is as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sundaram Motors Vs. Ameer Jan reported in 1984 (2) LLJ 22 = 1985 (1) SCC 118.

¶50

11. Both parties have entered into this settlement and are filing this compromise petition on their own free will and volition.”

¶51

The respondent and the learned counsel representing him admitted receipt of the Bankers cheque bearing No.340408 dated 09.04.2021 drawn on State Bank of India, IIS Branch Bengaluru for Rs.25 lakhs towards full and final settlement of the due under the award. They also submitted that nothing is due under the award passed by the Labour Court. The submissions of the respondent and the learned counsel are placed on record.

¶52

Both the learned counsel submit that in view of the terms of the compromise entered into between the parties, the order of

¶53

10 -

¶54

conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 29 of I.D. Act is liable to be set aside.

¶55

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

The compromise petition filed by the parties is accepted. The revision petition is allowed in terms of the compromise petition.

¶58

The award dated 01.02.2001 passed by the Labour Court is held to be fully satisfied.

¶59

The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.35948/2011 on the file of the learned VII Additional CMM, Bengaluru which is confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.470/2014 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-X, Bengaluru are set aside.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

Sri R. Mohandas v. Sri Devadasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R. Mohandas v. Sri Devadasan

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

Sharanu Son of Mallikarjun Vs the State

Prabhu @ Prabhuling Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Syappa S/O Chandrappa Bellur Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Sulaksha M Pednekar Vs State of Karnataka

Sunilkumar S/O Vithalrao Dhule Vs the State of Karnataka

Nehal Ahmed S/O Mohammed Ali Sheikh Vs the State through