M/S. the Economic Times Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....take up the interlocutory application for injunction and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously. order 43 rule 1 says that: an appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of section 104 namely. an order under rule 1, rule 2, rule 2a, rule 4 or rule 10 of order 39. the choice is for the party affected by the order either to move the appellate court or to approach the same court which passed the ex parte order for any relief. learned senior counsel for the respondents then contended that an order granting injunction without complying with the requisites envisaged in rule 3 of order 39 be void. learned single judge stated that the trial court ought not to have granted ex parte injunction beyond thirty days to be in force. the aforesaid rule casts a three-pronged protection to the party against whom the ex parte injunction order was passed. second is the legal obligation that if for any valid reasons the court could not finally dispose of the application within the aforesaid time the court has to record the reasons thereof in writing......opposed the prayer for quashing. he submitted that the trial is now almost at its verge end and is fixed for examination of the accused under section 313 of the code of criminal procedure, therefore, at this stage the question of quashing of the proceeding does not at all called for.3. now, after a very careful consideration of the respective submissions of the parties i am of the opinion that it will not at all be justified to quash the trial at a stage when the recording of prosecution evidence is over and the trial is almost complete. it is not disputed that the trial is now pending at the stage of examination of the accused under section 313 of the code of criminal procedure. it is true that a division bench of our high court in a mandamus appeal arising out of a writ proceeding, where the subject matter of challenge was the award in question, directed payment of a sum of rs. 20,000/- to the workman and further directed the balance amount with the interest accrued thereon be returned to the petitioner. it may be noted the first court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of award, whereas the appellate court disposed of the appeal without going into the.....

Judgment:

1. Invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner approached this Court for quashing of a criminal proceeding, relating to a case under Section 29 read with Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, now pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta.

2. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted before this Court that by an award published on 22nd May, 1980, on a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act made to it, the 4th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal held the workman one Paritosh Saha was entitled to the grade and scale of pay of a stenographer and as the petitioner company did not allegedly implement the said award, a complaint was filed under Section 29 read with Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which is now pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta. According to the Learned Counsel of the petitioner the said award was challenged before this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction, however, the said writ petition was dismissed and the award was upheld. When the petitioner preferred an appeal and as directed by the Appellate Court a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was deposited to the Learned Counsel of the workman, Paritosh Saha. In the meantime, the service of the workman, Paritosh Saha was terminated with effect from May 20, 1982. Thereafter, the said appeal came up for final hearing and a Division Bench of this High Court disposed of the appeal, on May 13, 1992, directing that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- be paid to the workman while the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- with the accrued interest be returned to the petitioner. According to the Learned Counsel of the petitioner, as the dues of the workman has been paid in terms of the order of this Court, the continuation of the impugned proceedings is patently illegal and amounts to an abuse of process of Court and he prayed that the impugned proceedings be quashed.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing. He submitted that the trial is now almost at its verge end and is fixed for examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, at this stage the question of quashing of the proceeding does not at all called for.

3. Now, after a very careful consideration of the respective submissions of the parties I am of the opinion that it will not at all be justified to quash the trial at a stage when the recording of prosecution evidence is over and the trial is almost complete. It is not disputed that the trial is now pending at the stage of examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is true that a Division Bench of our High Court in a Mandamus Appeal arising out of a writ proceeding, where the subject matter of challenge was the award in question, directed payment of a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the workman and further directed the balance amount with the interest accrued thereon be returned to the petitioner. It may be noted the first Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of award, whereas the Appellate Court disposed of the appeal without going into the merit of the award. Merely because after the institution of the criminal case for non-implementation of the award, the payment has been made, it cannot be said that offence has been obliterated. At best the same may be a mitigating circumstance in the matter of imposition of sentence but that cannot be the ground for quashing of the trial, which is only awaiting for examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code. It may be noted that the Learned Counsel of the State strenuously argued that the workman is entitled to more amount than that of the amount of money he received. However, this court is not inclined to go into the same at the present stage. This criminal revision has no merit and stands dismissed.

4. In view of dismissal of the main criminal revision the connected application for extension of interim order being CRAN No. 1599 of 2010 has now become infractuous and also stands dismissed.

5. It appears that the aforesaid proceeding is pending in the Court below since 1985 and already the said proceedings has reached the stage of examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code. Accordingly, the Trial Court is directed to make all endeavours to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order. The Trial Court is further directed to proceed with the case on continuous basis and not to grant any adjournment to either of the parties, unless the Court finds the same is necessary for ends of justice. This order be communicated to the Court below by the department within a week from this date. The parties shall be entitled to urgent Photostat certified copy on usual terms.