9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 1121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from service after holding a departmental inquiry. Thereafter the company also moved the Court of the learned JMFC, Surat under section 630 on the ground that the petitioner was allotted company quarters for residential purpose during his employment with the company and upon dismissal, the petitioner was required to vacate the quarters which he was wrongfully withholding. The petitioner s defence in the said proceedings was that during pendency of the complaint, the petitioner had already moved the appropriate Government for referring the industrial dispute challenging his dismissal and that the Government had made such a reference on 2-4-1997. Since the petitioner has right to challenge the order of dismissal, during pendency of such adjudication proceedings before the Labour Court, the petitioner was entitled to occupy the quarters and, therefore, the petitioner was not withholding the possession of the quarters wrongfully. Ultimately by order dated 27-7-1998 (Annexure III to the petition), the learned Magistrate held that since the petitioner was dismissed from service, he had no right to continue to occupy the quarters and, therefore, the petitioner was wrongfully withholding p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that if any officer or employee of the company wrongfully withholds the property of the company, he shall be punished with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, but the section deliberately does not refer to workmen even though the Legislature itself has made reference to workmen in certain other provisions of the Act like section 529(3)( a ) and section 529A of the Act. We are not inclined to accept this contention for the simple reason that the term employee is a wider generic term which would include workman also. In fact, the provisions of section 529(3)( a ) defines workmen in the following terms : "( a ) workmen , in relation to a Company, means the employees of the company, being workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)." The above definition itself indicates that the Legislature has treated workmen as one of the categories of employees. There is nothing in the provisions of section 630 or any other provision which would indicate that the Legislature intended to exclude workmen from the scope of section 630. The object of section 630 is to provide speedy remedy for enabling the company to obtain possession of its prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order to save such an interpretation, it must be held that the provisions of section 630 must yield to the provisions of the I.D. Act. 5.4 It is contended that even if the employee is dismissed from service, once he raises an industrial dispute, the provisions of section 33(1) of the I.D. Act would come into force, and thereupon the employer would be prohibited from altering the conditions of service which would also include the petitioner s occupation of the quarters allotted by the company and, therefore, during pendency of the reference, as a matter of right the petitioner would be entitled to continue to occupy the quarters and, therefore also it cannot be said that the occupation of the quarters in question was wrongful. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Nanavati for the respondent-company has submitted as under : 6.1 Allotment of quarters in question was in view of the petitioner s employment with the company and upon the employment coming to an end, the petitioner ceased to have any right to occupy the company s quarters. The provisions of section 33 of the I.D. Act do not contemplate that a workman whose services have come to an end, once the relationship of employer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the remedy of challenging such dismissal before the Labour Court by setting a reference made under section 10 of the I.D. Act. So long as the Labour Court hearing such reference does not give any declaration that the dismissal was illegal or so long as the Labour Court does not pass any other order staying the operation or any further implementation of the order of dismissal (assuming that the Labour Court has any such power), the order of dismissal would remain in force and the Criminal Court hearing the complaint under section 630 has to consider the situation in light of the order of dismissal/termination of service. Mere pendency of the reference before the Labour Court cannot and does not deprive the Criminal Court of its powers under section 630. Hence, we do not find any conflict between the provisions of the I.D. Act and section 630 which are both Central legislations. 9. Coming to the contention of Dr. Sinha that otherwise also, the petitioner s continued retention of the quarters could not be said to be wrongful in view of the provisions of section 33(1) of the I.D. Act, we find that the argument is misconceived. The said provisions intend to prohibit the employer fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... employer filed the complaint under section 630 on 5-3-1997, the consequential order of eviction of quarters came to be passed by the learned Magistrate on 27-7-1998 on which date the order of dismissal was in full force and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in giving a finding that in view of the order of dismissal the petitioner had no right to continue to occupy the quarters and that such continued occupation of the quarters even after receiving the notice of eviction from the respondent-employer was sufficient to bring the case within the scope of section 630. 13. Both the Courts have given the finding that the petitioner was allotted quarters in question by the respondent-company during his employment and that upon dismissal from service, the petitioner ceased to have any right to occupy the quarters in question and the continued occupation of the quarters from the date of the dismissal order and more particularly from the date of service of eviction notice by the respondent-company amounted to the wrongful withholding of the property of the respondent-company. We would like to note that after the petitioner was dismissed from service in January, 1997, the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
