Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maruti s/o Narsingrao Ladde, was the Manager (P. & A.) of Ashok Leyland Limited. The Ashok Leyland United Employees' Union, a Representative Union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, filed a complaint (ULPN No. 729/2000) before the Industrial Court, Nagpur against the company under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act), alleging unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV. The complaint sought relief for 53 persons, including the first respondent Balakdas Meshram. An application for interim relief under Section 30(2) was also filed. On 27.9.2000, a joint pursis was filed by the union and the company, and the Industrial Court disposed of the interim application in terms of the pursis. Subsequently, the union filed a criminal complaint (ULPA No. 22/2003) before the Labour Court, Bhandara under Section 48 of the MRTU and PULP Act against the company and the petitioner, alleging non-compliance of the interim order. The Labour Court issued process against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a revision before the Industrial Court, which was dismissed. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The High Court examined the complaint and found that there were no specific allegations that the petitioner was responsible for compliance of the interim order. The court noted that the complaint was filed beyond the period of six months from the date of the alleged offence and was barred by limitation. The court held that the complaint did not disclose any offence against the petitioner and was an abuse of process of law. The court quashed the complaint against the petitioner and set aside the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Quashing of Complaint - Section 48 of MRTU and PULP Act - Vicarious Liability - The complaint under Section 48 of the MRTU and PULP Act must contain specific allegations that the accused was responsible for compliance of the interim order. Mere designation as Manager is insufficient to fasten criminal liability. The court held that the complaint against the petitioner lacked specific allegations and was liable to be quashed. (Paras 5-7) B) Limitation - Criminal Complaint - Section 48 of MRTU and PULP Act - Period of Limitation - The complaint under Section 48 of the MRTU and PULP Act must be filed within six months from the date of the offence. The court noted that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation and was barred. (Para 8) C) Criminal Law - Quashing of Complaint - Section 482 of Cr.P.C. - Inherent Powers - The High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal complaint if no prima facie case is made out. The court held that the complaint against the petitioner did not disclose any offence and was an abuse of process of law. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a criminal complaint under Section 48 of the MRTU and PULP Act can be sustained against a manager of a company without specific allegations that he was responsible for compliance of the interim order and whether the complaint was barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the criminal complaint (ULPA No. 22/2003) against the petitioner, and set aside the orders of the Labour Court dated 29.9.2003 and the Industrial Court dated 17.12.2004.
Law Points
- Criminal complaint under Section 48 of MRTU and PULP Act requires specific allegations against the accused
- vicarious liability not automatic
- order of interim relief must be served on the accused
- quashing of complaint if no prima facie case
