IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.924 OF 2012 BETWEEN:
THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER B.M.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: B.S. SHRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI: B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE) AND SRI T KRISHNAPPA S/O T THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS BETHAMANAHALLY, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: BYRAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI: KANTHARAJA V, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:3.3.11 IN C.C.NO.8170/11 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ACMM, BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent seeks time. No grounds. Prayer rejected.
2. Perused the petition.
3. It is averred in the petition that the respondent was under the employment of the petitioner. He was dismissed from service for unauthorized absence. He raised a labour dispute. The Labour Court passed an award in I.D.No.180/1999 directing the petitioner herein to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and consequential benefits. The said order was challenged before the High Court by the petitioner as well as by respondent. By order dated 27.7.2009 while confirming the order for reinstatement of the respondent, punishment imposed by the petitioner was modified and respondent was imposed with a penalty of withholding of two increments for five years without cumulative effect. That being the case, respondent herein filed a private complaint inter alia alleging that the petitioner herein failed to abide by the award passed by the Labour Court and hence sought action against the petitioner under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned proceedings, petitioner is before this Court.
4. In the complaint it is specifically averred that pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court, the respondent has been reinstated on 28.10.2009. The only grievance raised by the respondent in the complaint is that petitioner has not made pay fixation and has not given the benefits arising out of dismissal order. Undeniably, fixation of pay is not the subject matter of award. Even assuming that the petitioner has failed to fix the pay of respondent as per rules, same would give rise to an independent cause of action under Section 33(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not for criminal prosecution under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. An action under Section 29 of Industrial Disputes Act could be maintained only when the employer commits breach of any terms of settlement or award, which is binding on him under the Act. The acts complained by the respondent in the private complaint are not covered under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. As such, initiation of the proceedings against petitioner on the purported ground are illegal and stark abuse of process of Court.
5. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated against petitioner under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act are quashed.
bkp Sd/- JUDGE