9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by the Government of Maharashtra in Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Bombay, being the appropriate authority by its order dated 6th March 1986 as contemplated by the provisions of sub-section (1) of S. 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. He stated that the accused who is the petitioner in this case is the Secretary of the Company viz., Anglo French Drug Company (Eastern) Ltd. which is a Public Limited Company manufacturing pharmaceutical and fine chemicals products. The Company has a factory at Bangalore and its registered office and distribution office including stores are situated at Jerbai Wadia Road, Parel, Bombay. The workmen employed at Bangalore and Bombay are represented by Roche/Anglo-French Employee's Uni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h S. 31 of the said Act. The management has effected closure on 14th June 1985 thereby altering the conditions of service applicable to the workmen without obtaining express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceedings were pending. 6. It is for this reason that the complainant stated that an offence punishable under section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act having been committed, the accused be dealt with according to law. The complainant produced along with the complaint, the order issued by the Desk Officer, Industries, Energy and Labour Department on 6th March 1986 authorising the complainant Shri Nikam, Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Bombay, to make a complaint against the accused for committing the brea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the offence in view of this provision after the lapse of the period of one year provided by S. 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. He states that in the complaint it has been stated that the closure took place on 14th June 1985 while the complaint had been filed on 12th September, 1986. According to him the complaint was, therefore, clearly barred by limitation. 11. In this connection, it has been pointed out to me by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the closure was in fact not on the 14th June 1985 but on the 3rd July 1985 and in this connection he relied upon the petitioner's statement to that effect in para 3 of the petition. According to him, the date has been wrongly mentioned in the complaint. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stance, I must state that no counter was filed to the petition in spite of the fact that an averment was made that the complaint was barred by limitation. If the respondent-complainant wanted to take advantage of this provision, it was necessary for the respondent to plead this exclusion clause by filing proper affidavit-in-reply. Even assuming for the sake of argument that it is open to the respondent to now plead that this period is liable to be excluded, I do not think that the argument advanced on behalf of the State is tenable. 13. One must turn to the provisions of S. 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which read thus : 34. Cognizance of offences. - (1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14. Reference to some of the allied provisions could be made. Under the provisions of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S. 20 states that No prosecution for an offence under this Act, not being an offence under section 14 of S. 14A, shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of, the Central Government or the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf, by general or special order, by the Central Government or the State Government. Therefore, here under the provision of S. 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or of a person authorised in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government or the State Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consent by the appropriate Government was contemplated by S. 34(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It could be possible to refer to other similar enactments, but I do not find that exercise necessary in this case. 15. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon a decision in the case of State v. Diamond Prabhu, reported in (1980) 1 Kant LJ 23. A similar point arose for their Lordships' consideration and they upheld the contention raised on behalf of the accused that the prosecution was not entitled to exclusion of time required for obtaining the authorisation of the appropriate Government for filing the complaint. The learned Public Prosecutor in that case has relied upon the provision of sub-sec. (3) of S. 470 Cr.P.C. a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
