AJIT SINGH BAINS, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 15th March, 1982, of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh, vide which a complaint was forwarded to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code against the present appellants.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : - An application under section 33 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act was filed by and on behalf of the workmen union by the appellants who were representatives of the Markfed Employees Union. While disposing of the aforesaid application, the learned Labour Court directed the appellants to show cause as to why prosecution should not be launched against them for the false evidence given by them in the case. After perusing the reply of the appellants, the learned Labour Court directed to file a complaint under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh.
(3.) A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Sodhi, learned counsel for the respondent -management, that no appeal lies under section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned order. I find no merit in this contention. Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is in the following terms : - "341. Appeal - (1) Any person on whose application any Court other than a High Court has refused to make a complaint under sub -section (1) or sub -section (2) of Section 340, or against whom such a complaint has been made by such Court, may appeal to the Court to which such former court is subordinate within the meaning of sub -section (4) of Section 195, and the superior court may thereupon, after notice to the parties concerned, direct the withdrawal of the complaint, or, as the case may be, making of the complaint which such former court might have made under section 340, and if it makes such complaints, the provision of that section shall apply accordingly. (2) An order under this section, and subject to any such order, an order under Section 340, shall be final, and shall not be subject to revision". From the reading of the aforesaid section, it is plain that any person on whose application any Court, other than the High Court, has refused to make a complaint under sub -section (1) or (2) of section 340, or against whom such a complaint has been made by such Court, can appeal to a superior Court within the meaning of sub -section (4) of section 195 and that the superior Court then may, after hearing the parties, direct the withdrawal of the complaint, or as the case may be, the making of the complaint. Sub -section (3) of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is in the following terms : - "In clause (b) of sub -section (1), the term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purpose of this section". From the reading of the aforesaid provision, the term 'Court will include Will include a Civil Court or Criminal Court and also includes a tribunal constituted by a Central Provincial or State Act, if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purpose of this section. Thus the Labour Court would be deemed as a 'Court' as it is constituted under the Central Act, i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, and sub -section (8) of section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act provides that every Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall be deemed to be Civil Court for the purpose of sections 480, 482 and 484 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus from the combined reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the Labour Court shall be a court under section 340(1). Moreover, the Labour Court has directed the complaint to be filed under section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code. There is no other power vested in the Labour Court to direct the filing of complaint for perjury. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the appeal is competent under section 341 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order of filing complaint against the appellants passed by the Labour Court. Otherwise also, the High Court has the power of control and superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus the preliminary objection taken by Mr. Sodhi is overruled.;