Appeal against Single Judge order dismissing writ petition seeking quashing of prosecution for alleged unfair labour practices. The Court held that adjudication before filing a complaint under the Industrial Disputes Act is not mandatory and prosecution initiation based on prima facie allegations is permissible.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
LPA No.628 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.5.2010
Adarsh Gupta
-----Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
Present:Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant.
Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.
LPA No.628 of 2010 (O&M)
2
labour practice under Entry 7 of the Fifth Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’) by malafide transfer. On receiving complaint of the workman to that effect, notice was given to the appellant as to why prosecution be not initiated and thereafter complaint was filed. Grievance raised in the writ petition was that since filing of a complaint was not preceded by adjudication, the complaint was liable to be quashed. 3. Learned Single Judge rejected the submission holding that Sections 32 and 34 of the Act did not contemplate adjudication prior to filing of complaint. There was safeguard against filing of a frivolous complaint in the form of locus for filing complaint being available only under the authority of the appropriate Government. Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Leveer Limited v. Ashok Vishnu Kate and others, (1995) 6 SCC 326, it was held that unlike Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention Act, 1971, bar to initiation of prosecution without prior adjudication was not applicable in the present Act. The appellant had sufficient opportunity to defend himself before the Criminal Court.
LPA No.628 of 2010 (O&M)
3
LPA No.628 of 2010 (O&M)
4
interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge
May 14, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether adjudication prior to filing of a complaint alleging unfair labour practice is a mandatory precondition for initiating prosecution.
Whether the High Court can quash prosecution at the initial stage on the ground of alleged lack of prior adjudication.
Whether filing a complaint without prior adjudication amounts to condemning the accused unheard.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
(2009) 11 SCC 67Followed¶2
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Adarsh Gupta
State of Haryana
Adarsh Kumar Goel
Alok Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
