BHARUCHA, J. - (1.) ON 16/04/1991, the first respondent passed the following order, acting under the provisions of Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") : "Whereas it has been made to appear to the Lt. Governor of the Union Territory of Delhi that the management of M/s. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Bella Mill Compound, Outside Seharagate, Surat (ii) M/s. Garden Silk Mills Ltd., 4959-Kucha Rehman, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-6 have indulged in unfair labour practices as enumerated in the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thereby contravened section 25-T of the aforesaid Act which is an offence punishable under section 25-D of the Act ibid.
(2.) NOW, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 34 of the said Act read with, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Notification No. 2/2/61-Judl.I, dated the 24/03/1961 and after having considered the matter carefully, the Lt. Governor of the Union Territory of Delhi, is pleased to authorise Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Patron, Garden Silk Mills, Karamchari Sangh (Regd.), 5239-Ajmeri Gate, Delhi to file a complaint in the court of competent jurisdiction, against the abovesaid establish-ment and the following of its Officers, which is punishable under section 25-U of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended up-to-date. JUDGEMENT_556_1_1997Html1.htm 2. The order was challenged by the employer (the third respondent) in a writ petition filed in the High Court of Delhi. The writ petition was allowed by the order under appeal, which reads thus : "In view of our judgment in C.W.P. No. 1715 of 1991 (M/s. Tobu Enterprises Limited and others v. The Lt. Governor, Delhi, and others) the impugned order is bad in law and is set aside. There will be no order as to costs. Rule is made absolute." This appeal by special leave is filed by the person to whom the authorisation under Section 34 was given. Section 34 reads thus : "34. Cognizance of offences.- (1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or of the abetment of any such offence, save on complaint made by or under the authority of the appropriate Government. (2) No Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act." In the case of M/s. Tobu Enterprises Limited, the only question which arose for consideration was whether a private person could be authorised under Section 34 to file a complaint for an offence under Section 25-U of the said Act. (Section 25-U prescribes the penalty for committing an unfair labour practice. The Delhi High Court came to the conclusion that under the provisions of Section 34, the appropriate Government could file the complaint itself or the complaint could be filed under its authority, but there could not be two extremes, that is, either the appropriate Government itself filed the complaint or it could authorise any private party to do so. The complaint had to be filed either by the appropriate Government or its functionaries. If the authority to file a complaint was given to a private person it was likely to be abused. There would be no check on the complainant to prosecute the complaint with due diligence. He would not be interested in a fair trial and might be actuated by personal vendetta against the accused, frustrating a fair and speedy trial. The appropriate Government had to have control over the whole of the prosecution.
(3.) THE Delhi High Court found itself unable to agree with the view taken to the contrary by a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in S. N. Hada v. THE Binny Ltd. Staff Association, 1989 Lab IC 165. THE identical question had been raised before the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court and the Full Bench held that if the view was taken that only the Government or its agent could file the complaint, then the provisions of Section 30, providing for the filing of the comlaint by or on behalf of a trade union or a business which was affected, would become redundant. This could not have been the intention of the Legislature. Viewed from any angle, the Full Bench found it difficult to hold that under Section 34 a private body or a person other than an agent of the Government could not be authorised by the Government to file a complaint. Section 30 reads thus : "30. Penalty for disclosing confidential information.- Any person who wilfully discloses any such information as is referred to in section 21 in contravention of the provisions of that section shall, on complaint made by or on behalf of the trade union or individual business affected, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both." ;