9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 630 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called in short the Act ) and sentencing them to various punishments with direction to vacate the premises allotted to them as employees of the company which are in their occupation even after their termination/resignation from service of the company. 2. Since there is common and identical legal controversy involved in all these petitions seeking the same relief, I have heard these petitions together and they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The relevant facts are that the complainant non-petitioner is running an Industry known as Shriram Rayons in Kota city. The petitioners were employees of the said company, but their services were later terminated on various da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1947. The learned Courts below having failed to consider these aspects of the case, the judgments passed by them are liable to be quashed and set aside. They have also submitted that the trial court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints against the petitioners. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on Hanuman Prasad Gupta v. Hiralal AIR 1971 SC 206, H.V. Jayaram v. Industrial Credit Investment Corporation of India Ltd. AIR 2000 SC 579 1 . They have also submitted on the strength of the decision in Jagdish Chandra Nijhawan v. S. K. Saraf AIR 1999 SC 217 that the dispute between the parties was of civil nature. So, no criminal cases could have been lodged against them. 6. Learned counsel for the non-p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench of this Court is not with regard to the termination/resignation of the services of the employees. In this regard, they have placed reliance on Baldev Krishna Sahi v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. AIR 1987 SC 2245, Atul Mathur v. Atul Kalra [1989] 4 SCC 514, Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. v. Dundayya Gurushiddaiah Hiremath [1991] 2 SCC 141, Smt. Abhilash Vinod Kumar Jain v. Cox Kings (India) Ltd. AIR 1995 SC 1592, P.N. Mobar v. State of Rajasthan 1997 (1) WLC (Raj.) 578 and Beguram v. Jaipur Udhyog Ltd. [1987] 61 Comp. Cas. 744 ( ). 8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have perused the judgments under challenge and the relevant record as well as the authorities cited at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the second class to try any particular case or particular class of cases, and where any such Special Court is established, no other Court or Magistrate in the local area shall have jurisdiction to try any case or class of cases for the trial of which such Special Court of Judicial Magistrate has been established." 11. The facts of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners and referred to above are clearly distinguishable on facts. In the cases of Hanuman Prasad Gupta and H.V. Jayaram ( supra ), the dividend warrants and share certificates respectively were dispatched from the registered head offices of the companies and in these facts it was held that the companies could be filed only at the place where th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt between the company and the employees governing the allotment, vacation or retention of the accommodation allotted to the petitioners as employees of the company. Hence, the decision in that case is also of little avail to the petitioners. 12. In the aforementioned authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners, it has been clearly held that if the employee does not vacate the premises allotted to him and in his possession after his retirement or resignation, he shall be held to be with-holding the possession wrongfully and would be liable for prosecution and punishment under section 630 of the Act. It has been held in Atul Mathur s case ( supra ) that the object of section 630 of the Act is to provide speed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of imprisonment is to be imposed under sub-section (2) only on disobedience of the order of the Court directing the person continuing in possession of the company s property after extinguishment of his right. 15. This Court in the case of P.N. Mobar ( supra ) has held that section 630 of the Act applies both to the existing officers and employees and also to those whose employment has already been terminated. The question of propriety of termination can be decided by civil or industrial adjudication. The conviction of the petitioner in that case was up-held though sentence imposed upon him was reduced. Similar view has been taken in other cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners. 16. In view of the foregoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
