Lorcom (Protectives) Ltd. Vs. Lata Dangare and Another

.....consequential as the powers of a police officer under the provisions of the criminal procedure code. the police patil is to act unlike a police officer under the orders of the district magistrate and has to report the matters to him and even where he makes some inquiry or investigation, he is expected to submit report to the station officer and has not been empowered to take any further action, like preparation of a charge sheet or its presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction. he is vested with no powers in regard to the powers vested in an investigating officer under the provisions of section 173 of the criminal procedure code. the act does not contain any deeming provision which by fiction of law would term a police patil as a police officer. it could be possible that an act may specifically stipulate that a police patil for all intent and purpose shall be deemed to be a police officer under the provisions of the village police act and/or the criminal procedure code. in the absence of such a deeming fiction of law, it is difficult to confer the status of a police officer in law upon a police patil or accept the contention that the police patil is clothed with the powers and functions of a police officer. neither there is any specific provisions in the act not on principle of implied interpretation it can be said that provisions of the act suggest that the police patil is a police officer in law. his duties, functions and powers are not identical or even closely identical to the powers of a police officer under the provisions of the criminal procedure code. .....to reinstate the complainant in service till the disposal of the complaint. the revision petition u.l.p. no. 31/91 preferred in the hon'ble court at aurangabad came to be dismissed finally on august 2, 1991. a review petition made to the hon'ble court came to be rejected on february 26, 1993. the petitioner had approached this court having felt aggrieved by the aforesaid orders. 4. in some other proceeding, the matter had reached this high court and interim orders have been passed directing the petitioner to deposit in the court the amounts of wages of the petitioner. the learned advocates for the parties said before this court that amounts were allowed to be withdrawn twice and the application for permission to withdrawal of third amount is still pending and is fixed on april 2, 1993 before this very court. 5. the impugned order of the labour court directing the reinstatement, as an interim measure, was unjustified because that was in a way granting to the original complainant the final relief that was sought for. it was enough to direct even at this stage that her pecuniary interest should be protected during the pendency of the enquiry of the proceeding. in view of this consideration, the impugned order regarding the reinstatement shall stand suspended on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit in this court the amount of wages which would be payable to the petitioner but for the order of dismissal that was passed against the respondent. it is also necessary to direct, in view of the prolonged history of the litigation between the parties, that the complaint no. 77/1991 should be heard and disposed of according to law by the labour court at aurangabad, as expeditiously as possible and in any event, not later than june 30, 1993. 6. with the above direction, the writ petition is disposed. rule made absolute accordingly.