Palok Basu - (1.) IN short, the controversy in all these matters is as to whether if and when a licence to live in a quarter is revoked by a licensor, can the licensee be prosecuted for an offence under section 448 IPC.
(2.) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 207 of 1981, 208 of 1981, No. 209 of 1981 and No. 210 of 1981 related to matters which, according to the learned counsel for the appellants have become infructuous and on the strength of his statement these are being dismissed as not pressed. These four matters related to acquittals of Ram Lakhan, Jogendra Singh, Sarabjeet Singh and Bhullu. Since they are not being pressed no further discussions on the details of these appeals are necessary. The respondents Ram Lakhan, Ram Bharosey, Sarabjeet, Pati Ram, Ram Dayal, Phool Chand and Chhabi Lal in all these seven appeals were prosecuted on different complaints filed by Somnath Pal alleging himself to be the Vice-Chairman of Radha Swami Sat Sangh Sabha, Agra, under section 448 IPC but the magistrate, after trial, came to the conclusion that the said offence was not made out as against each respondent in each case and, therefore, after obtaining Special Leave from this Court, the complainant has preferred these seven appeals which are being disposed of by this common judgment. The admitted facts are that Radha Swami Sat Snagh Sabha has enough landed property as also very many buildings and quarters. Some of the quarters are permitted to be used by those who are employed in one or the other activity run by the Sabha. Some quarters are permitted to be used by even such persons who are not employed by or connected with the activity of the Sabha. Each of the respondents is trying to allege that they were permitted to live in the quarters allotted to them as a result of the contract of employment whereas in each case the Sabha has set up its plea that nothing as that happened and, in fact, each respondent was granted a licence to live in the respective quarters.
(3.) FURTHER proved facts are that all the respondents were in the employment of the Sabha though the commencement of each one's employment began at different dates. Similarly all the respondents have lost their jobs at which they took up their matters before the Labour Court for adjudication. When the complaints ripened for decision before the magistrate, the proceedings before the Labour Court were pending. In this regard, the admitted changed facts are that the Labour Court had in the meantime passed an award which was taken to this Court in a writ petition and the finding operating today is that since the Sabha was not an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court had no power to adjudicate on the issues raised through the respondents.;