K.S.KUMARAN, J. - (1.) LABOUR Inspector Grade II, Union Territory, Chandigarh lodged a complaint (Annexure P-12) on 3.5.1996 under Section 25T and 25U of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh against petitioner - Anil Kumar Mohindroo and two others of Geoffery Manners and Company Ltd., alleging that the petitioner and the co-accused have violated the provisions of Section 25T of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the case of Mr. M.G. Sharma, an employee of M/s. Geoffery Manners and Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company). The complainant has also referred to the authorisation given to him to launch the prosecution (Annexure P-13) by the Home Department of Chandigarh Administration dated 29.3.1996 wherein it has been mentioned that Mr. M.G. Sharma, who was working with Geoffery Manners and Company Ltd., was transferred to Delhi in the year 1992, and that is an unfair labour practice prohibited under Section 25T of the Industrial Disputes Act. It has also been mentioned that the petitioner and the two other co-accused have violated the said provision and, therefore, they have to be prosecuted.
(2.) THE petitioner, who has been summoned has approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint and all the consequential proceeding before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. The case of the petitioner is as follows :- A memorandum of settlement dated 22.7.1989 was entered into between the Company and the workman under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, with regard to the enhancement of the scales of pay, allowances and other monetary benefits of the workmen. The settlement also provided that the settlement would remain in force upto 31.3.1992 and shall continue to remain in force even thereafter until terminated by either party under Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Though, it was agreed that the workman would not agitate or raise any demand involving any financial burden upon the management during the period when settlement would remain in force, a demand notice was served upon the Company and proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner for conciliation were also taken, but the conciliation proceedings failed, and the matter was referred to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act, as to whether demands in the demand notice dated 26.12.1991 were genuine and justified and if so, as to what relief the workers are entitled. The Company filled Civil Writ Petition No. 9722 of 1992 challenging the reference and this Court stayed the passing of the final order by order dated 9.10.1992.
(3.) BUT prior to the institution of the writ petition, on 13.6.1992 the second respondent-M.G. Sharma, was transfered to the Zonal Office, New Delhi, on which the second respondent filed an application under Section 33A of the Act. The Labour Court stayed the order of transfer by order dated 16.6.1992.;