Judgment:
ORDER
B.N. Srikrishna, J.
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the Labour Court, Pune, dated 28th July, 1989made in Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 30 of 1988 and the order of the Industrial Court dated 7th June, 1990 made in Revision Application (ULP) No. 37 of 1989, both under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. The respondent filed a complaint, Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 30 of 1988, before the Third Labour Court, Pune, alleging inter alia therein that the present petitioners had committed an offence under section 48 of the Act and praying that they be punished in accordance with law. It appears that though a statement of verification was recorded on 27th September, 1988, the record does not show that it was done after administering oath to the respondent complainant, nor does it show that it was made before the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. Nonetheless, the Labour Court appears to have issued process therein to the petitioners calling upon them to appear in person before the Court to show cause why proper action under section 48 of the Act should not be taken against them.
3. The petitioners filed application before the Labour Court and pointed out that the process had been issued without application of mind in that the complaint was not verified on oath before the Labour Court. By the impugned order dated 28th. July, 1989, the Labour Court was of the view that the record indicated that it could be clearly said that there was nothing in writing that the said statement was made on oath, nor was there any endorsement of the Presiding Officer below the statement that it was recorded before him. The Labour Court held that these irregularities were of technical nature and for this the entire proceedings cannot be vitiated. In this view of the matter, the Labour Court over-ruled the objection and the prayer made for discharging the petitioners.
4. The petitioners carried the matter in revision to the Industrial Court at Pune by Revision Application (ULP) No. 37 of 1989. By the impugned order dated 7th June, 1990, the Industrial Court dismissed the revision by taking the view that non-observance of such technicalities would not be sufficient to vitiate the trial. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court by the present writ petition.
5. Under Chapter VIII of the Act, the Labour Court and the Industrial Court are invested with certain criminal jurisdiction. Section 38 empowers the Labour Court to try offences punishable under this Act. Section 39 provides as under :
'No Labour Court shall take cognizance of any offence except on a complaint of facts constituting such offence made by the person affected thereby or a recognised union or on report in writing by the Investigating Officer'.
Section 40 provides as under :
'Powers and Procedure of Labour Courts in trial :---
In respect of offences punishable under this Act, a Labour Court shall have all the powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. (V of 1898), of a Presidency Magistrate in Greater Bombay and a Magistrate of the First Class elsewhere, and in the trial of every such offence, shall follow the procedure laid down for in Chapter XXII of the said Code of summary trial in which an appeal lies; and the rest of the provisions of the Code shall so far as may be, apply to such trial.'
It would thus be seen that the Labour Court is invested with the powers of a Presidency Magistrate in Greater Bombay and a Magistrate, of the First Class elsewhere while dealing with the trial of the criminal complaint under the Act. The Labour Court is also required to follow the procedure laid down in Chapter XXII of theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Corresponding provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) and the rest of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply as far as possible to such trial.
6. A Criminal Court may be moved by a complaint made to the Magistrate. Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (or even for that matter section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898) provides that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint 'shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate'. It is not in dispute that these provisions were not observed by the Labour Court while taking cognizance of the complaint filed by the respondent. In the first place, there is nothing to show that the complainant was examined upon oath. Secondly, the requirement of the Labour Court signing the examination of the complainant on oath reduced to writing has also not been complied with. Both the courts below have brushed away the requirements of the statute as 'technical irregularities cannot vitiate the trial'. In my view, the irregularities noticed are not merely technical but affect the trial. Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shows that under the first proviso two contingencies have been contemplated when the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses in the manner required under the main body of the section. This, per se, suggests that in all other situations the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint is bound to comply with the provisions of section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Legislature in its wisdom has provided that the machinery of criminal law ought not be swung into action unless the complainant solemnly declares before the Magistrate the circumstances indicating the offence and the Magistrate, only upon consideration of such circumstances, is empowered to take cognizance of the complaint. I am afraid, it is not possible to brush aside the requirements of section 200 as technical irregularities, nor am I able to subscribe to the view of the Industrial Court, that because the complaint is one arising under a social benefit legislation, the statutory requirements and safeguards can be waived. The complaint, if properly entertained, might result in a conviction, if the offence is proved in accordance with law resulting in deprivation of property and/ or liberty of a citizen. Merely because the offence is one prescribed in a labour statute, it would be incorrect to brush away the requirements of Criminal Procedure Code which have been incorporated as safeguards under the Act.
7. Both the courts below erroneously over-ruled the objection raised by the complainant and held that the complaint had been properly entertained. In my view, the non-compliance with section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly vitiates the complaint. Process ought not to have been issued in such a situation.
8. In the result, the impugned order of the Labour Court dated 28th July, 1989 made in Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 30 of 1988 and the impugned order of the Industrial Court dated 7th June, 1990 made in Revision Application (ULP) No. 37 of 1989 are hereby quashed and set aside. The cognizance taken of the complaint is quashed and set aside. Petitioner-accused are discharged. This shall, however, not prevent the Labour Court from taking cognizance of the complaint in accordance with section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if the requirements of section 200 are fulfilled.
9. Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs.
10. Petition allowed.