Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 7388-7390 of 2001
PETITIONER:
MANAGEMENT OF M/S MYSORE STRUCTURALS LTD. & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/10/2001
BENCH:
D.P. Mohapatra & K.G. Balakrishnan
JUDGMENT:
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
Leave granted.
Judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court is
challenged in these appeals. The first appellant is a public limited
company and appellants 2-5 are Directors thereof. The appellants
challenged the order passed under Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 [for short, the Act] whereby the first respondent gave sanction
for prosecuting the appellants for alleged violation of the provisions
contained in the Act. By judgment dated 26.3.1998 the learned Single
Judge declined to interfere with the order and the judgment of the learned
Single Judge was subsequently confirmed by the Division Bench.
Relevant facts for the purpose of these appeals are thus.
Services of three workmen, who were the employees of the first
appellant-company were terminated by the appellant company and those
workmen raised an industrial dispute. An award was passed in favour of
the workmen and the appellant-company was directed to reinstate them
with continuity of service and full back-wages. The appellant-company
challenged the award before the High Court of Karnataka by filing writ
petition, which was later dismissed. The award passed by the Labour
Court became final. The appellant-company, however, did not implement
the award. Initially, the workmen filed an application for contempt of court
before the High Court. That application was rejected by the High Court
with the observation that the remedy under Section 29 or Section 33C of
the Act was available to the workmen. Thereupon, the second
respondent-Workers Union sought sanction of the Government for
prosecution of the appellants. The Labour Commissioner exercising
power under Section 34 of the Act gave sanction to the Workers Union to
launch proceedings against the management of the first appellant.
As pointed out earlier, the two courts have found that the order
passed by the Labour Commissioner is not vitiated by any illegality. The
appellants contended before us that the company had already been
closed as early as 31.8.1982 and the factory license was surrendered. It
has also been urged before us that the land owned by the company was
donated to a charitable trust and that in this view of the matter the
appellants are not in a position to implement the award passed by the
Labour Court. It was argued that the sanction for prosecution was given
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
without considering these material facts.
It is true that the authorities while granting sanction for prosecution
should take into account all material facts, which are relevant for the
purpose of such decision. This Court in Feroz Din & Ors. vs. State of
West Bengal AIR 1960 SC 363, relying on an earlier decision reported in
Gokulchand Dwarakadas vs. The King 75 Indian Appeals 30 = AIR
1948 PC 82, held as under :
The Judicial Committee in the case above-mentioned itself
observed that the sanction would be good if it was proved by
the evidence that it has been granted after all the necessary
facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority
though these facts might not have been stated on the face of
the sanction itself. It therefore seems to us that the sanction
in the present case is unobjectionable.
In the instant case also, the sanction was granted for prosecution
after taking all relevant facts into consideration. We do not propose to go
into the arguments advanced before us as any consideration of these
contentions may eventually put fetters on the defence that may be taken
by the appellants. Whether the appellants were in a position or whether it
was impossible for them to grant relief to the workmen as directed by the
Labour court in the award would necessarily be a matter for consideration
by the court that would be seized of the proceedings.
As observed by this Court in Raj Kumar Gupta vs. Lt. Governor,
Delhi & Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 556, the provisions of Section 34 of the Act
are in the nature of a limitation on the entitlement of a workman or a trade
union or an employer to complain of offences under the Act. It was
pointed out that they should not, in the public interest, be permitted to
make frivolous, vexatious or otherwise patently untenable complaints, and
to this end Section 34 requires that no complaint shall be taken
cognizance of unless it is made with the authorization of the appropriate
Govt.
The order passed by the Labour Court cannot be said to be an
illegal exercise of power. The authority was prima facie satisfied that
there was violation of the provisions contained in the Act. The award
passed by the Labour Court has become final and the remedy available to
the workmen is under Section 29 of the Act. As for the appellants, it is
open to them to raise all these contentions in their defence in the
proceedings launched against them as a consequence of grant of sanction
under Section 34 of the Act. Without prejudice to the right of the
appellants to raise such contentions, we dispose of these appeals. It is
made clear that the observations made by the High Court would not stand
in the way for raising such contentions.
Parties to bear their own costs.
...................................J
( D.P. Mohapatra )
................................J
( K.G. Balakrishnan )
October 30, 2001.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
5