1999 (3) TMI 543 - HC - Companies Law

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 630(2) of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Impact of pending conciliation proceedings under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the jurisdiction of the court.
3. Validity of the termination and the right to retain company-allocated quarters.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 630(2) of the Companies Act, 1956:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 10-3-1990 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh, which entertained an application under Section 630(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner was dismissed from service and directed to vacate the company-allotted quarter. The court highlighted that Section 630 provides penalties for wrongful withholding of company property and empowers the court to order the delivery of such property. The court concluded that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 630(2) for the wrongful withholding of the quarter.

2. Impact of pending conciliation proceedings under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the jurisdiction of the court:
The petitioner argued that during the pendency of conciliation proceedings, the employer is restrained from altering conditions of service to the prejudice of the workman without written permission from the authority handling the proceedings. The court analyzed Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which prohibits employers from altering service conditions or punishing workmen during pending conciliation proceedings. However, the court noted that the conciliation proceedings were initiated after the petitioner's dismissal and after the application under Section 630 was filed. The court referred to the Division Bench decision in L.S. Nair v. Hindustan Steel Ltd. AIR 1980 MP 106, which stated that the validity of termination is presumed until set aside by the Labour Court. The court concluded that the pendency of conciliation proceedings did not bar the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 630.

3. Validity of the termination and the right to retain company-allocated quarters:
The petitioner claimed victimization due to union activities and contested the termination. The respondents argued that the quarter was allotted by virtue of employment, and upon termination, the petitioner was required to vacate it. The court emphasized that the right to occupy the quarter ceased with the termination of employment. It referred to the Bombay High Court decision in Chandragupta Gupta v. Padmanabha Subramani [1989] 65 Comp. Cas. 190, which held that disputes over termination do not affect the continuation of criminal cases under Section 630. The court concluded that the petitioner had no right to retain the quarter post-termination and that the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was not affected by pending conciliation proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, upholding the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 630(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, and ruled that the pendency of conciliation proceedings under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 did not bar the court's jurisdiction. The petitioner was required to vacate the company-allotted quarter post-termination.

← Previous Next →