Andheri Marol Kurla Bus Service & Another v. the State of Bombay

Judgment

I959 Ranjit Singh Tlic State of Punjab J;·apur j. I959 April 21. The appellant relied upon a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Emperor v. Lachmi Narain (1). But unless there was something peculiar in the facts of that case it cannot be considered to be good law. It does not even take into consideration Explanation 2 of s. 191. Lastly it was urged that the· procedure adopted by the Magistrate was erroneous in that he did not hold an enquiry as required·under ss. 200 and 202, Criminal Procedure Code, the former of which is expressly mentioned in sub-section 2 of s. 476, Criminal Procedure Code. That contention is equally untenable because under s. 200, proviso (aa) it is not necessary for a Magistrate when a complaint is made by a court io examine the complainant and neither s. 200 nor s. 202 requires a preliminary enquiry before the Magistrate can assume jurisdiction to issue process against the person complained against.

In our opinion the appellant has been rightly convicted and we would therefore dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed . ANDHERI MAROL KURLA BUS SERVICE & ANOTHER THE STATE OF BOMBAY (JAFER IMAM and J. L. KAPUR, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Conciliation proceedings-Pendency of- Whether terminate on expiry of I4 days-Industrial Disputes Act, I947 (XIV of r947) SS. I2(6), 20(2), JI(I) and 33(I). Conciliation proceedings were started in January r952 with respect to some disputes between appellant l and its workmen. On May g, 1952, the Union and on June 2, 1952, the appellant l indicated to the Conciliation Officer that the negotiations had failed. In the meantime on March 18, 1952, the appellant 1 dismissed (1) I.L.R. 1947 All. 155· one of its workmen. The two appellants and three others were r959 prosecuted under s. 31 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for a breach of s. 33 for dismissing a workman during the pendency of Andheri Marol the conciliation proceedings.

The appellants contended that Kurla Bus Service since s. 12(6) required the report of the conciliation proceedings to be submitted within r4 days of the commencement thereof, the proceedings had terminated on the expiry of the 14 days and The State of the dismissal was, therefore, not during the pendency of the con- Bomb2y ciliation proceedings. Held that, in cases where no settlement was arrived at the conciliation proceedings terminated when the report of the Conciliation Officer was received by the appropriate Government and not on the expiry of 14 days from the commencement of the proceedings. The commencement and termination of conciliation proceedings were determined bys. 20 and not bys. 12(6). The dismissal of the workman was during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings and the appellants were guilty under s. 31(1) of the Act. Workers of the Industry Colliery, Dhanbad v. Management of the Industry Colliery, [r953] S.C.R. 428; Colliery Mazdoor Congress, Asansol v. New Beerbhoorn Coal Co. Ltd., 1952 L.A.C. 219, applied.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1957. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the February 4, 1955, of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1256 of 1954, arising out of the judgment and order dated June 19, 1954, of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, in Case No. 176/S of 1953. Hardayal Hardy, for the appellants. H.J. Umrigar and R.H. Dhebar, for the respondent. 1959. April 21. The Judgmen~ of the Court was delivered by KAPUR, J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay reversing the judgment of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, and thus convicting accused Nos. 1 & 5 under s. 31(1) read withs. 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act) and sentencing accused No. 1 to a fine of Rs. 250 and accused No. 5 to a fine of Rs. 50. Kapur]. '959 The appellants are the Andheri Marol Kurla Bus dh 1 Service who was accused No. I (now app'ellant No. I)

An "' "'° . d · M H M l'h I 5 Kuda Bu' service an its anager . '- an w lO was accuse I· o. "°Another (now appellant No. 2). Some disputes arose between the appellant No. I and its workmen. On December The State of 13, 1951, the Conciliation Officer wrote to the appel- Bombay !ant No. I and enclosed the demands of the Union Kapur]. which were dated August 9, 1951. On December 31, 1951, the appellant No. l was asked to appear before the Conciliation Officer on January 9, 1952, and after getting one adjournment the appellant No. I appeared before the Conciliation Officer on January 17, 1952, and filed its Written Statement and raised various objections. The next date of hearing was January 31, 1952, and the proceedings went on till June 2, 1952, when the appellant No. 1 wrote to the Conciliation Offi.cer saying that no useful purpose would be served by holding any further meetings. On May 9, 1952, the Union had also indicated to the Conciliation Officer that the negotiations had failed.

On March 18, 1952, the appellant dismissed Louis Pereira, a bus conductor 1tnd proceedings were taken on a com plaint by Assistant Commissioner of Labour under s. 33 read with s. 31 of the Act against 5 accused persons the two appellants and the partners of appellant No. I. The Chief Presidency Magistrate acquitted all the accused including the appellants and held that as the conciliation proceedings had continued for a period of more th;rn 14 days as from January 17, 1952, further proceedings for conciliation were illegal and therefore the accused persons could not be convicted under s. 31(1) of the Act. The State took an appeal to the High Court and the judgment of acquittal was reversed and of the accused persons the two appellants were convicted and the others were acquitted. The two appellants have appealed by special leave. The question for decision is whether the conciliation proceedings could be said to be pending when Louis .Pereira was dismissed.

If the answer is in the affirmative then the appellants have been properly convicted and if not the conviction must be set aside. Section 31(1) makes the contravention of the provisiun of s. 33 of the Act an offence punishable with x959 imprisonment for a period which may extend to six 1 months or with fine or with both. Section 33(1) prog:,~= ;~s ;;,:ice vides: S. 33(1)

"During the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer or a Board or The State of of any proceeding before a Labour Court or Tribu- Bombay nal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall:- (a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceedings; or (b} for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workmen concerned in such dispute, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending". Therefore the question reduces itself to the meaning of the words " pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer".

The argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that the object of conciliation is to get a settlement made with expedition and therefore under s. 12 the _Conciliation Officer was bound to make his report within 14 days of the commencement of the conciliation proceedings or within such shorter period fixed by the appropriate Government. From this it was submitted that as 14 days had expired before March 18, 1952, the dismissal could not be said to be one within the words " pendency of conciliation proceedings". The Act provides for commencement and conclusion of conciliation proceedings under s. 20 but the first sub-section of s. 20 dea}s with what are called utility services and sub-s. 2 of that section provides as to when the conciliation proceedings conclude. That sub-section is as follows :- S. 20(1) " ..................................................... . (2)

A conciliation proceeding shall be deemed to have concluded- 93 I<apur ]. '959 (a) where a settlement is arrived at, when a 1 memorandum of the settlement is signed by the par- And eri Maro h d" Ku,/a Bus Smice ties to t e ISpute; & Anoth" (b) where no settlement is arrived at, when the report of the conciliation officer is received by the The State of appropriate Government or when the report of the Bombay Board is published under s. 17, as the case may be; or Kapu. J. (c) when a reference is made to a Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal under section 10 during the pendency of conciliation proceedings". The provisions of sub-section 2 apply to all conciliation proceedings whether in regard to utility services or otherwise. All conciliation proceedings under this sub-section shall be deemed to have concluded in the case where no settlement is reached, when the report of the Conciliation Officer is received by the appropriate Government.

The conciliation proceedings therefore do not end when the report under s. 12(6) is made by the Conciliation Officer but when that report is received by the appropriate Government. It was contended that the conciliation proceedings should be held to terminate when the Conciliation Officer is required under s. 12(6) of the Act to submit his report but the provisions of the Act above quoted do not support this contention as the termination of the conciliation proceedings is deemed to take place when the report is received by the appropriate Government. This is how s. 20(2)(b) was interpreted in Workers of the Industry Colliery,. Dhanbad v. Management of the Industry Colliery (1). It was next contended that on this interpretation the conciliation proceedings could be prolonged much beyond what was contemplated by the Act and the termination would depend upon how soon a report is received by the appropriate Government. It is true that s.

12(6) of the Act contemplates the submission of the report by the Conciliation Officer within 14 days but that does not affect the pendency of the conciliation proceedings and if for some reason the Conciliation Officer delays the submission of his report his action (1) [1953) S.C.R. 428. (2) S.C.R. may be reprehensible but that will not affect the '959 interpretation to be put on s. 20(2)(b) of the Act. A dh . M . 1 Section 12 lays down the duties of the Conciliation Kur7a ;~s ;:,:ice officer. He is required to bring about settlement between the parties and must begin his investigation without delay and if no settlement is arrived at he is to The •State of submit his report to the appropriate Government. No Bombay doubt s.

12 contemplates that the report should be Kapur 1. made and the proceedings closed within a fortnight and if proceedings are not closed but are carried on, as they were in the present case, or if the Conciliation Officer does not make his report within 14 days he may be guilty of a breach of duty but in law the proceedings do not automatically come to an end after 14 days but only terminate as provided in s. 20(2)(b) of the Act. Colliery M azdoor Congress, Asansol v. New Beerbhoom Coal Co. Ltd (1). As the conciliation proceedings were pending at the time when Louis Pereira was dismissed the appellants were rightly convicted under s. 31(1) read with s. 33 of the Act. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Appeal dismissed. THE STATE OF AJMER (now RAJASTHAN) SHIVJI LAL (B. P. SINHA, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANCHOO JJ.)

Public Servant-Teacher. in railway school-Whether public servant-Taking of money promising to procure a job-Whether illegal gratification-Criminal misconduct in the discharge of dutyl ndian Penal Code (Act 45 of I86o), ss. 2I, cl. 9, I6I-Prevention of Corruption Act, I947 (2 of Ig47), ss. 4(I), S(I)(d), (2). The respondent who was a teacher in a railway school was prosecuted under s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and s. 5(2) read withs. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The (1) [1952] L.A.C. 219, 222. April n.