- (1.) "27. Law, especially Industrial law, which regulates the rights and remedies of the working class, unfamiliar with the sophistications of definitions and shower of decisions, unable to secure expert legal opinion, what with poverty pricing them out of the justice market and denying them the staying power to withstand the multi-decked litigative process, de facto denies social justice if legal drafting is vagarious, definitions indefinite and Court rulings contradictory. Is it possible, that the legislative chambers which too preoccupied with other pressing business to listen to Court signals calling for clarification and of ambiguous clauses ? A careful, prompt amendment of Section 2(i) would have pre-empted this docket explosion before tribunals and Courts. This Court, perhaps more than the legislative and executive branches, is deeply concerned with law's delays and to device a prompt delivery system of social justice." The anguish of the Constitution Bench voiced by Krishna Iyer, J. perhaps has haunted the spectre of the proceedings under the Industrial law and it is high time to put an interdict to - "Legalese and logomachy have the genius to inject mystique into common words, alienating the laity in effect from the rule of low." as held in the celebrated decision of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and others, 1978 AIR(SC) 548.
(2.) I am reminded of the hallowed observation of the Constitution Bench in the said case while adjudicating a perfectly justified and correct order of Shri Pranab Kumar Deb the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24- Parganas (s) in Case No. C-938/93 on 6.7.96.
(3.) Such Order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore has been sought to be countenanced on behalf of the Petitioner on the basis of the proposition that the offence punishable under Section 29 read with Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, (here-in-after referred to as the said Act') is not a continuing offence and the Petition of Complaint having been filed beyond the logistic time schedule was liable to be discarded and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate grossly erred by allowing the condonation of delay and fixing the date for appearance of the accused.;