2000 (11) TMI 1121 - HC - Companies Law

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Applicability of Section 630 to workmen.
3. Conflict between the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) and Section 630 of the Companies Act.
4. Right of the petitioner to occupy company quarters during the pendency of an industrial dispute.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of Section 630:
The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 630 on various grounds, including allegations of discrimination and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The court referred to the decision in *Petlad Bulakhidas Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat* which had already upheld the constitutional validity of Section 630. The court reiterated that the section is neither discriminatory nor constitutionally invalid. The law was within legislative competence, and challenges on the grounds of discrimination and deprivation of the right to life were previously negatived.

2. Applicability of Section 630 to Workmen:
The petitioner contended that Section 630 does not cover workmen and is only applicable to officers and employees other than workmen. The court rejected this argument, stating that the term 'employee' is a wider generic term which includes workmen. The definition of 'workmen' under Section 529(3)(a) of the Companies Act supports this interpretation. The court emphasized that there is no indication that the legislature intended to exclude workmen from the scope of Section 630, which aims to provide a speedy remedy for companies to reclaim their property wrongfully withheld by any officer or employee.

3. Conflict Between the ID Act and Section 630:
The petitioner argued that the ID Act, being a special act, should prevail over the general provisions of Section 630 of the Companies Act. The court found no conflict between the two statutes. It held that the mere pendency of a reference before the Labour Court does not deprive the Criminal Court of its powers under Section 630. The Labour Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality of dismissal does not interfere with the Criminal Court's authority to address the wrongful withholding of company property. The court clarified that the Labour Court's decision on the legality of dismissal does not affect the Criminal Court's proceedings under Section 630 unless the Labour Court explicitly stays the dismissal order.

4. Right to Occupy Company Quarters During Pendency of Industrial Dispute:
The petitioner claimed that during the pendency of an industrial dispute, he had the right to continue occupying the quarters and that the employer could not resort to Section 630 without the employee obtaining an interim order from the Labour Court. The court dismissed this argument, stating that upon dismissal, the employee loses all benefits associated with employment, including the right to occupy company quarters. The court noted that Section 33(1) of the ID Act, which prohibits altering conditions of service during the pendency of an industrial dispute, does not apply to cases where no industrial dispute was pending at the time of dismissal. The court concluded that the continued occupation of the quarters after dismissal was wrongful.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the revision application, upholding the orders of the learned JMFC and the Sessions Judge requiring the petitioner to vacate the company quarters. The court found no merit in the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 630 and affirmed that the section applies to workmen. It also found no conflict between the ID Act and Section 630 and ruled that the petitioner had no right to occupy the quarters after dismissal. The court directed that the respondent should not take coercive action until 31-12-2000 to allow the petitioner time to seek further legal recourse.

← Previous Next →