1989 (9) TMI 396 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Pendency of proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act as a bar to criminal prosecution.
2. Ownership of the premises under Section 630 of the Companies Act.
3. Nature of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. Status of the employer as a company under Section 630 of the Companies Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Pendency of Proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act as a Bar to Criminal Prosecution:
The petitioner contended that the ongoing challenge to his dismissal before the competent forum under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, should bar the criminal prosecution under Section 630 of the Companies Act. The judgment clarified that the proceedings challenging the dismissal and the criminal prosecution are distinct and different. The court emphasized that the criminal prosecution under Section 630 is permissible if the employee retains possession of the company's accommodation after dismissal, despite notice to vacate. The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in Jayappan v. Perumal First Income Tax Officer, Tuticorin, which held that the pendency of reassessment proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution for filing false returns. Similarly, the court concluded that the pendency of proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act does not bar the criminal prosecution under Section 630 of the Companies Act.

2. Ownership of the Premises under Section 630 of the Companies Act:
The petitioner argued that the premises at Door No.5, De Monte Street, Santhome High Road, Madras-4, did not belong to the company, hence prosecution under Section 630 was not maintainable. The court interpreted the term "property" in Section 630 broadly, including not just ownership but also lesser rights like leasehold. The court noted that the premises were leased by the company and allotted to the petitioner as a condition of service, evidenced by Ex.P-4. Thus, the company's right to retrieve the property upon the petitioner's dismissal was upheld, and the contention was rejected.

3. Nature of the Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C:
The petitioner claimed that the petition should be construed as a revision rather than under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court noted that the petitioner had already filed a revision before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed. As per Section 397(3) Cr.P.C, a second revision is barred. The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in Rajan Kumar Machananda v. State of Karnataka, which held that invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot circumvent the bar under Section 397(3). The court found no grave defect or illegality in the lower courts' procedures warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C, and thus, this contention also failed.

4. Status of the Employer as a Company under Section 630 of the Companies Act:
The petitioner contended that Messrs. Jayems Engineering Company Private Limited should not be construed as a company under Section 630 of the Companies Act. The court examined Ex.P-3 (appointment order) and Ex.P-4 (allotment order), which clearly indicated the petitioner's employment with the company and the allotment of premises as a condition of service. The court found no ambiguity in these documents and noted the petitioner's admission during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The court concluded that the company status was established, and the contention was an attempt to escape the consequences of Section 630.

Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed after a thorough examination of all contentions. The court upheld the criminal prosecution under Section 630 of the Companies Act, despite the ongoing proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. The broad interpretation of "property" under Section 630 was affirmed, and the procedural bar under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C was enforced, rejecting the misuse of Section 482 Cr.P.C. The company's status was confirmed, and all contentions raised by the petitioner were found to be without substance.