Ashok Kumar Jain Vs. State of Bihar
[1994] INSC 657 (8 December 1994)
RAY, G.N. (J) RAY, G.N. (J) HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION: 1995 SCC (1) 516 JT 1995 (1) 150
1994 SCALE (5)187
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.N. RAY, J.-
1.
The
appellants in these criminal appeals are Chairman, Managing Director and other
senior officials in the Management of Rohtas Industries Limited, a Company
registered under the Indian Companies Act and engaged in the manufacture and
sale of variety of products namely cement, vanaspati, paper, asbestos, cement
products etc. The factories owned by the Company were situated at Dalmianagar
in the district of Rohtas, Bihar, wherein about 15,000 workers were engaged.
The Company had a contract with Bihar State Electricity Board for the supply of
25,000 KVA of electricity and the Company was to pay 75% of the electricity
charges irrespective of the fact whether such supply for running its factories
and establishments was made. The case of the Company is that due to chronic
shortage of power supply ever since 1981 varying between
11.5 to 7.3 MW of electricity per diem, the
productive activities of the Company suffered immensely. The Electricity Board
made demand for payment of Bill including enhanced fuel surcharge for the
period 1977-80 and 1980-81 which stood at Rs 72,61,010,70.00. The Company moved
writ petitions in Patna High Court for quashing supplementary bills but such
writ petitions were dismissed. The Company's attempt to clear dues of the
Electricity Board by installments also failed. The Board disconnected electric
connection to the Company's factories and establishments for which the Company
suffered a serious setback. The Company resorted to lay-off of its workers
without obtaining prior permission of the authority concerned. For such action
of layoff, complaints were filed by the Superintendent of Labour, Dalmianagar
before the, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram who took cognizance of the
offence under Section 25- M read with Section 25-Q of the Industrial Disputes
Act.
The appellants moved the Patna High Court for
quashing the complaint by challenging the maintainability of the said criminal
cases by contending that Section 25-M insofar as it required permission to
lay-off was ultra vires the Constitution of India. The appellants also
contended that layoff was necessitated because of power failure on account of
insufficient and irregular supply of power by the Electricity Board and some
other reasons beyond the control of the Company or the appellants. It was also
contended that the appellants could not be held an employer for the purpose of
prosecution for the offence under Section 25-M read with Section 25-Q of the
Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court of Patna held inter alia that Section
25-M was ultra vires the Constitution and the complaint prima facie 518
disclosed offence under the said provisions. Hence, taking of cognizance by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate could not be held illegal or invalid warranting
quashing of the complaint. The, High Court, however, held that it was only just
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the Magistrate
would hold enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the
purpose of ascertaining as to whether the appellants or anyone of them could be
held to be employer so that they could be summoned to stand trial for the
aforesaid offence. The High Court therefore allowed the said applications for
quashing the criminal proceedings only to the extent indicated above.
2.
Against
the aforesaid decisions of the High Court special leave petitions were moved
before this Court which have been admitted giving rise to these appeals.
Further proceedings and prosecution of the criminal cases have been stayed by
this Court on 22-2-1985. Mr Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
appellants has contended that the vires of Section 25-M(2) cannot be upheld for
the reasons indicated by this Court in Excel Wear case1. He has submitted that
Madras High Court has held the said provision as constitutionally invalid and
the appeal from such decision is pending disposal before this Court. That
apart, lay-off became inevitable on account of power failure occasioned by
short supply and irregular supply of power seriously affecting productive
activities. In the facts of the case it is more than evident that the lay-off
was not motivated or unjustified but such lay-off had to be resorted for
compulsive circumstances beyond the control of the Company and its Management
including the appellants. He has submitted that the Company became sick beyond
revival and all attempts to revive have failed. The Company is no longer in the
management of the factories and productive units. Even if the vires of Section
25-M is upheld, in the facts of the case, there is no difficulty in finding
that there was no lack of bona fide on the part of the Company and its
Management in resorting to lay-off. Such action had to be taken to save the
Company from being permanently sick.
The situation was so grave that the
Management felt the need of immediate lay-off without waiting for permission as
contemplated under Section 25-M. That apart, Section 25-0 was declared ultra
vires by this Court in Excel Wear case1 and constitutional validity of Section
25-M for the reasons indicated in Excel Wear case1 was seriously doubted. In
the aforesaid circumstances, the lay-off without taking prior permission cannot
be held to be per se illegal and unjustified and mala fide. The liability of
the appellants for being prosecuted under Section 25-M read with Section 25-Q,
in any event, are doubtful, As a matter of fact, the High Court has directed
the Chief Judicial Magistrate to first ascertain the liability of the
appellants before proceeding further with the criminal cases. In view of order
of stay granted by this Court, such enquiry has not yet been held. After such a
long lapse of time, resumption of enquiry and the criminal proceedings will not
serve any practical purpose but the appellants are bound to suffer irreparable
1 Excel Wear v. Union of India, (1978) 4 SCC 224: 1978 SCC (L&S) 509:
(1979) 1 SCR 1009 519 loss and prejudice because of the changed circumstances
and long lapse of time. Mr Jain has submitted that the criminal cases should be
quashed to secure ends of justice. He has submitted that such power has been
exercised by this Court when the ends of justice demanded such quashing
although the criminal case was validly instituted and was otherwise
maintainable.
3.
As
the question of vires of Section 25-M of Industrial Disputes Act was involved
in these appeals and also a Civil Appeal No. 807 of 1982+ (arising out of the
decision of Madras High Court), all these matters were heard analogously. We
have upheld the vires of Section 25-M in the decision rendered in Civil Appeal
No. 807 of 1982+.
Hence, the contention that Section 25-M being
ultra vires, no prosecution on account of violation of the provisions of
Section 25-M is maintainable, cannot be accepted.
4.
It
however appears to us that there is enough force in the contention of Mr Jain
that in the special facts of the case and in the altered scenario, the enquiry
as directed by the High Court need not be made and the criminal cases
instituted against the appellants need not be pursued any further. Such course
of action in our view is not only within the scope and ambit of Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure but in the special facts of the case will also
secure the ends of justice. We, therefore, allow these appeals and quash the
criminal cases instituted against the appellants for the alleged violation of
Section 25-M of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Back