Lalita Jalan and anr. Vs. Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
company - penalty for wrongful withholding of property - expression 'officer or employee' used in section 630 of the companies act, 1956 - meaning of - supreme court in baldev krishna sahi vs. shipping corporation of india ltd. and amrit lal chun vs. devoprasad dutta held that employee would include the legal heirs of the deceased employee - another bench of the supreme court in the case of j. k. (bombay) ltd. vs. bharti matha mishra (mrs.) & ors. had held that the provision cannot be liberally construed so as to rope in family members, other than the legal heirs or representatives of such past officer or employee - there being conflict between the two decisions on the interpretation of section 630 of the act, matter referred to a larger bench of the supreme court.companies act, 1956 section 630- code of criminal procedure, 1973- section 482- constitution-article 21- the case involves a company which provided a flat to one of its directors for staying, who died in 1967 while still in his post.- the flat was purchased by the company in 1991.- it started criminal proceedings against son, daughter-in-law and grandson who did not vacate the flat under section 630 of the companies act, 1956.- a petition was filed by the accused persons in high court for quashing the complaint under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973.- the petition was dismissed by the high court.- the appeal was dismissed in the supreme court, which declared the possession of the property by an employee or anyone claiming the property through him as as unlawful.- penal consequences were liable to be inflicted on any person who continued to withhold the possession in such cases.- the occupation of the flat by the grandson who was born after the death of the director will also imply the withholding of company property. - labour & servicesappointment:[tarun chatterjee & h.l.dattu, jj] post of mazdoor in government department - separate advertisement issued for general and obc category number of posts in said categories mentioned - caste certificate produced by candidate claiming appointment in obc category found to be defective he never claimed to be considered in general category held, his case cannot be directed to be considered in general merit only because he has scored more marks than last selected candidate in general merit. rajendra babu, j. 1. this matter involves interpretation as to the scope of section 630 of thecompanies act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as 'the act']. this court inabhilash vinodkumar jain (smt.) v. cox & kings (india) ltd. and ors., : (1996)iiillj354sc has explained that the expression 'officer or employee' used insection 630 of the act should be given a broad meaning in the light of thedecision of this court in baldev krishna sahi v. shipping corporation of indialtd., : (1988)iillj202sc and amrit lal chum v. devoprasad dutta, : (1988)illj421sc . the object of the said provision was explained to be not strictly penalin nature but quasi criminal, the main object being to provide speedy relief to the company where its property is wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withheld by an employee or ex-employee or anyone claiming under them. indeed this court explained the position as follows:'it would defeat the 'beneficent' provision and ignore the factual realities that the legal heirs or family members who are continuing in possession of the allotted property had obtained the right of occupancy with the employee concerned in the property of the employer only by virtue of their relationship with the employee/officer and had not obtained or acquiredthe right to possession of the property in any other capacity, status or right.' [p. 741] [emphasis supplied]on that basis ultimately, this court concluded that the employee would include the legal heirs of the deceased employee.2. when the matter came up before another bench of this court inj.k. [bombay] ltd. v. bharti matha mishra (mrs.) and ors., : 2001crilj961 , it was held that though the expression 'officer or employee of a company' would include past officer or employee of the company or his legal heirs or representatives but does not include other members of his family and further stated that the provision cannot be liberally construed so as to rope in family members, other than the legal heirs or representatives of such past officer or employee.3. prima facie, we find that there is an apparent conflict between the two decisions of this court - one in abhilash vinodkumar jain's case [supra] and the other in j.k. [bombay] ltd.'s case [supra], on the interpretation of section 630 of the act. hence we think it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger bench.