Dr. K.C. Bansal v. The State of Jharkhand

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner ------ : : : : : ------ 15/ 25.04.2023 Heard Mr. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel appearing for the Mr. Mokhtar Khan, Advocate. Mr. S.M. Abdullah, Advocate. Mr. Nawin Kumar Singh, A.P.P. Mr. Madan Prasad, Advocate. Mr. Md. Asghar, Advocate. For the State For the O.P. No. 2 For the O.P. No. 3 petitioner, Mr. Nawin Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Madan Prasad, learned counsel for the Union of India and Md. Asghar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 3.

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated

16.01.2013, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with C-III No. 42 of 2013, pending in the court of learned ACJM, Ranchi.

The case was registered by the O.P. No. 2 [the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Ranchi] for non-implementation of the award dated 02.01.2012, passed under Section 29 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the Director National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, Pusa Campus, New Delhi. He submits that the award was passed for reinstatement of O.P. No. 3 with 50% back wages and due to non-compliance of the said award, the case has been lodged under Section 29 of the Industrial Dispute Act and the learned court has taken the cognizance against the petitioner. He further submits that a supplementary affidavit has been filed, wherein Annexure-1 has been annexed, which is duly signed by O.P. No. 3, wherein he has disclosed that he is not interested at all in the reinstatement and he had no need of daily paid job. He submits that in view of such disclosure, the continuation of the proceeding is an abuse of the process of law.

Md. Asghar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 3 -2- submits that the O.P. No. 3 is illiterate person and he was not knowing about the contents of Annexure-2 of the supplementary affidavit.

Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as Union of India jointly submits that the learned court has rightly taken the cognizance.

In view of such submissions of the parties, the court has gone through the materials available on record including the award dated

02.01.2012. In view of Clause-(d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal:-

Whether the action of the management of National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, Regional Station, Ranchi in terminating the services of Shri Ravindra Kumar w.e.f. 01.02.1990 is justified ? If not, what relief he is entitled to?

The said issue was answered in favour of O.P. No. 3 and was directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages, however, the said award was challenged by the Management, however, the said writ petition was withdrawn.

In view of the supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of petitioner, where at Annexure-1 is the letter of O.P. No. 3, wherein he has disclosed that he is not interested at all in the reinstatement and he had no need of daily paid job. Thus, the management is not in a position to implement the said award.

The court after looking into the cognizance order dated

16.01.2013 finds that the said order is cryptic in nature, as the word cognizance, date and the case transferred to the learned court name has been filled up in the blank space, which suggests the non-application of judicial mind.

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 16.01.2013, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with C-III No. 42 of 2013, pending in the court of learned ACJM, Ranchi, are hereby, quashed.

If the O.P. No. 2 is willing to obtain the fruit of the award, he -3- may approach the Management and if the award is not implemented, the O.P. No. 3 may request the competent authority to take further action in accordance with law. Amitesh/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)