IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5462 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA, MUMBAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT ZONAL MANAGER SRI ANAND SHANKAR VERMA, DEPUTY ZONAL MANGAER, BENGALURU ZONE. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: SOURABH R K, ADVOCATE) AND THE ORGANISING SECRETARY ALL INDIA DEPOSIT COLLECTORS WORKMEN UNION (R), NO.19/1, SURYA GIRI NILAYA, 11TH CROSS, V.V.MOHALLA, MYSORE-570002. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: V SRIPAD, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2015 IN C.C.NO.421/2015 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCE (ANNEXURE-B) AND QUASH THE COMPLAINT IN PCR NO.2766/2014 DATED 30.09.2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is Bank of India, represented by its District Zonal Manager. It has called in question the order dated 9.2.2015 passed by the learned IV Additional I Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore taking cognizance of the offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act and has sought to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.421/2015 arising out of PCR No.2766/2014.
2. The organizing Secretary (now termed as General Secretary) of All India Deposit Collectors Workmen Union filed a private complaint against 28 banks and its officers seeking their prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the complaint it is averred that the complainant, a Registered Body exclusively for the welfare of the Pigmy Deposit Collectors in the country secured an award against the respondents/accused from the Hon’ble Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi on 7.10.2013 in I.D.No.45/2011. The respondents therein including the petitioner herein who is shown as accused No.15 deliberately failed to comply and implement the said award and hence, the respondent/complainant sought initiation of criminal proceedings against petitioner and other accused persons.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondent is absent. Perused the records.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, the petitioner-Bank was impleaded as a party to the arbitration proceeding. The petitioner disputed the claim on the ground that it never launched any tiny deposit scheme. That the Bank had not engaged any deposit collector at any point of time and hence, it sought that the name of the Bank may be deleted from array of parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no finding has been recorded on the plea set up by the petitioner. Instead, an award came to be passed by the arbitrators. In the said award there is no specific direction to the petitioner-Bank either to pay backwages or any other consequential benefits. Under the said circumstances, there is no question of the petitioner-Bank failing to comply and implement the award as contended by the respondent. Further, he submits that at no point of time the Bank had engaged the services of Pigmy Deposit Collectors and no person has come forward seeking any benefits from the petitioner under the award in question. Hence, the prosecution of the petitioner on the purported ground that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the award is patently illegal and abuse of process of Court. Thus, he seeks to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner-Bank.
5. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no effective award has been passed against the petitioner and that the contention raised by the petitioner has not been negated by the arbitrator cannot be accepted. Undisputedly, the petitioner was impleaded as respondent in the said award. In the said circumstance, the said award having not been challenged, petitioner cannot put forth a plea that the contention raised by it before the arbitrator has not been answered and therefore, it is not liable for implementing the award cannot be accepted. However, on going through the impugned award, I do not find any direction having been given to the petitioner herein requiring it to satisfy the claims of any of the Pigmy Deposit Collectors. The Hon’ble Arbitrator, in his award, has summed up his conclusions thus:
“190. In view of the findings recorded on issue No.1, it is ordered that deposit collectors operating in ‘A’ area, ‘B’ area and ‘C’ area cities would collect atleast Rs.3 lac, Rs.4 lac and Rs.5 lac per month respectively. They can meet the target every month or may collect a sum of Rs.9 lac, Rs.12 lac and Rs.15 lac respectively on 31st March, 30th June, 30th September and 31st December every year. On a collection of Rs.3 lac, a deposit collector would get fall back wages of Rs.8000.00 per month, besides conveyance allowance of Rs.750.00 per month. He will also get gratuity of Rs.4000.00 every year. On a collection of over and above Rs.3 lac and upto Rs.5 lac, all deposit collectors, irrespective of their areas of operation, will earn incentive remuneration of 3%. Thus, a deposit collector of ‘B’ area and ‘A’ area cities would get Rs.3000.00 and Rs.6000.00 respectively per month as incentive remuneration on minima limit of their collection. On collection of over and above Rs.5 lac, deposit collector would get incentive remuneration of 2%. All deposit collectors, irrespective of areas of their operation, would get conveyance allowance at flat rate of Rs.750.00 per month.
191. In case of failure of a deposit collector to meet minima standard of collection consecutively for two quarters of a year, his contract of service would be snapped by the bank without any further notice to him. For this inefficiency, he will not be able to claim any right of being heard from the bank.
192. The award will have retrospective operation from 19.07.2005, the date when the banks were summoned to appear before the Tribunal. An award be, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.”
6. In view of this finding, if at all any Pigmy Deposit Collector is entitled for any backwages or any such allowances, he is required to make a demand against the petitioner-Bank. In the absence of any such demand against the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner herein has failed to comply with the award or has deliberately failed to implement the award.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement before the Court that, at the first instance, the petitioner has not engaged the services of any person to make pigmy deposits and even if any such genuine claim is made, the Bank is always willing to consider the said claim in accordance with the award passed by the Hon’ble Arbitrator.
8. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, there is no cause of action for the respondent to initiate criminal action against the petitioner. The prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence is wholly illegal and an abuse of process of Court and therefore cannot be sustained.
9. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act in C.C.No.421/2015 on the file of the IV Additional I Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore are hereby quashed.
bkp Sd/- JUDGE