Arjun Narayan Patil and ors. Vs. I.D.B.i. Bank Ltd. and ors.

Arjun Narayan Patil and ors. vs i.D.B.i. Bank Ltd. and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Decided Mar 21, 2006

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/361119

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/361119
Court: Mumbai High Court
Judge: F.I. Rebello and; Anoop V. Mohta, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 21, 2006
Case Number: O.O.C.J. W.P. No. 429 of 2006
Subject: Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 41: [ Swatanter Kumar, CJ, Smt Ranjana Desai & D.B. Bhosale, JJ] Arrest of accused - Held, A Police Officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the Court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of ...

Key legal issue: Labour and Industrial
Acts & sections: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 12(3) and 12(5)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arjun Narayan Patil and ors.

Advocate K.S. Bapat and; J.K. Desai, Advs.

Respondent

i.D.B.i. Bank Ltd. and ors.

Advocate P.V. Paranjpe, ; G. Hariharan,; H.H. Singh and; T.C. Kaushik, Advs.

Legal References

Acts: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 12(3) and 12(5)
Reported In: [2006(110)FLR242]; (2006)3LLJ66Bom

Excerpt

.....desai & d.b. bhosale, jj] arrest of accused - held, a police officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the code. the provisions of section 41 of the code provides for arrest by a police officer without an order from a magistrate and without a warrant. a distinct and different power under section 44 of the code empowers the magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. under section 44 of the code, that power is vested in the court of the magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. if the legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under section 44 of the code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of chapter xii of the code. in terms of section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. language of this provision clearly suggested that the police officer can arrest a person without an order from the magistrate. thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of section 156(3) of the code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the police officer. of course, freedom of investigation is the essence of these provisions but in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the magistrate directs investigation under section 156 (3) of the code by taking recourse to the provisions of section 438 of the code by approaching the court of session or the high court for such relief. thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not ..........effect. it is therefore submitted that in these circumstances, there is no settlement in the eyes of law and consequently it was open to the petitioners to raise fresh dispute.4. the law is well settled that it is open for the appropriate government to refuse to make a reference. however, that cannot be upon reasons which are irrelevant. reference needs to be made as referred to in the judgment of apex court in the case of secretary, indian tea association v. ajit kumar barat and ors. : (2001)iillj249sc . the reasons given by the appropriate government are that workmen union would not establish their claim they are infact the employees of idbi bank limited. it cannot be said that said reason is irrelevant. the settlement entered into between the petitioners on the one hand and respondent no. 4 on the other would clearly establish the relationship of workmen and employer. once that be the position, it cannot be said that the order passed by the appropriate government under section 12(5) is arbitrary or without any authority of law.5. however, considering the complaint by the petitioners that settlement had not been implemented, we direct the respondent no. 2 minimum to take steps to see that the settlement is implemented, if not implemented, by calling the petitioners and respondent no. 4 and thereafter passing appropriate steps including prosecution. if respondent no. 4 fails to comply with the terms of the settlement, action be completed within six weeks of the order being served on respondent no. 2 with above direction.6. petition stands disposed of. there shall be no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

1. The petitioners had moved respondent No. 2 by way of conciliation proceeding. Their case before respondent No. 2 was that the respondent No. 2 was the direct employer and contract between the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 4 was sham and bogus. Respondent No. 2 submitted failure report to respondent No. 3. The appropriate Government in exercise of its power under Section 12(3) has rejected the reference as sought for by the petitioner. It is on that account that the parties have moved this Court.

2. From the record it appears that there was settlement in conciliation entered into between the petitioner on one hand and respondent No. 4 on the other to which officers of respondent No. 1 and 2 were also signatories. By that settlement which is under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, respondent No. 4 agreed to offer employment to the petitioners and they were to report immediately at re-deployed places.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that though settlement has been entered into, the respondent No. 4 has not given effect to the said settlement. In the light of that, they have addressed a letter to the Senior Police Inspector, N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station on April 8, 2003. It is the case of the petitioner that they have written a letter to respondent No.2 pointing out that conciliation settlement has not been given effect. It is therefore submitted that in these circumstances, there is no settlement in the eyes of law and consequently it was open to the petitioners to raise fresh dispute.

4. The law is well settled that it is open for the appropriate Government to refuse to make a reference. However, that cannot be upon reasons which are irrelevant. Reference needs to be made as referred to in the Judgment of Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Indian Tea Association v. Ajit Kumar Barat and Ors. : (2001)IILLJ249SC . The reasons given by the appropriate Government are that workmen union would not establish their claim they are infact the employees of IDBI Bank Limited. It cannot be said that said reason is irrelevant. The settlement entered into between the petitioners on the one hand and respondent No. 4 on the other would clearly establish the relationship of workmen and employer. Once that be the position, it cannot be said that the order passed by the appropriate Government under Section 12(5) is arbitrary or without any authority of law.

5. However, considering the complaint by the petitioners that settlement had not been implemented, we direct the respondent No. 2 minimum to take steps to see that the settlement is implemented, if not implemented, by calling the petitioners and respondent No. 4 and thereafter passing appropriate steps including prosecution. If respondent No. 4 fails to comply with the terms of the settlement, action be completed within six weeks of the order being served on respondent No. 2 with above direction.

6. Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Mumbai · 2006 Same Parties Arjun Narayan Patil and ors. vs i.D.B.i. Bank Ltd. and ors. Same Subject Labour and Industrial Same Judge F.I. Rebello and; Anoop V. Mohta, JJ. Acts & Sections Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 12(3) and 12(5)

Labour and Industrial