Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Viveck Goenka, Chairman and Managing Director of The Indian Express Limited, filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the order dated 11.9.2009 passed by the 4th Labour Court, Nagpur in Criminal (ULPA) No. 37 of 2009. The Labour Court had issued process against the applicant under Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The background was that a criminal complaint (ULP) No. 609 of 1998 was pending before the Labour Court against Indian Express Newspapers (Bom) Limited and its Branch Manager for alleged unfair labour practices. The respondent no. 1, Raju Rangari, filed a private complaint under Section 48(1) of the MRTU & PULP Act, alleging that the applicant, as Chairman and Managing Director, was liable for the unfair labour practices committed by the company. The Labour Court issued process against the applicant. The applicant challenged this order on the ground that there was no specific allegation that he was in charge of or responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant time, and that vicarious criminal liability could not be imposed without mens rea. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the Labour Court's order issuing process was unsustainable as the complaint lacked specific averments against the applicant. The court quashed the impugned order and set aside the process issued against the applicant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Vicarious Liability - Quashing of Process - Section 482 CrPC, Article 227 Constitution - Vicarious criminal liability cannot be imposed without specific allegation of mens rea against the director - The court quashed process against the Chairman and Managing Director as there was no allegation that he was in charge of or responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant time (Paras 1-5). B) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Section 48(1) MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Criminal liability under Section 48(1) requires personal involvement or knowledge of the accused - The Labour Court's process was set aside as the complaint lacked specific averments against the applicant (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Chairman and Managing Director of a company can be vicariously liable for an offence under Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 without any specific allegation of mens rea or personal involvement.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the application, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 11.9.2009 passed by the 4th Labour Court, Nagpur in Criminal (ULPA) No. 37 of 2009, and set aside the process issued against the applicant.
Law Points
- Vicarious liability in criminal law requires specific allegation of mens rea
- Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash process if no prima facie case
- Section 48(1) of MRTU & PULP Act requires personal involvement for criminal liability
