LAL, J. - (1.) THESE 11 revision petitions under Section 397 Cr. P. C. have been filed by the erstwhile employees of DCM Shriram Industries Ltd. against the various judgments rejecting their appeals and confirming the judgments of the trial Court convicting them for the offence under Section 630 of Indian Companies Act, 1956 (herein-after called in short `the Act') and sentencing them to various punishments with direction to vacate the premises allotted to them as employees of the company which are in their occupation even after their termination/resignation from service of the company.
(2.) SINCE there is common and identical legal controversy involved in all these petitions seeking the same relief, I have heard these petitions together and they are being disposed of by this common order. The relevant facts are that the complainant non-petitioner is running an Industry known as Shriram Rayons in Kota City. The petitioners were employees of the said company, but their services were later terminated on various dates or they resigned from service. But the petitioners did not vacate the accommodation allotted to them as employees of the company even after their termination/resignation from their service. So, the company filed separate complaints before the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 630 of the Act. After due trial, they all were found guilty of the offence under Section 630 of the Act and sentenced to various amounts of fine and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for various periods. They were also directed to vacate the premises within the time granted in the judgments of the trial Court. The petitioners preferred appeals against the aforesaid judgments of the trial Court which were also disallowed upholding the judgment and order of the learned trial Court. Hence, these revision petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the findings arrived at by the trial court as upheld by the Appellate Court and the conviction and sentence passed against them are patently illegal and perverse. The services of the petitioners have not been terminated after following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The matter with regard to their termination is still subjudice before the Division Bench of this court. The provisions of Section 630 of the Act are applicable only to the officers and the employees of the company and not to the petitioners who are workmen under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Courts below having failed to consider these aspects of the case, the judgments passed by them are liable to be quashed and set-aside. They have also submitted that the trial Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints against the petitioners. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on Hanuman Prasad Gupta (in all appeals) vs. Hiralal (AIR 1971 SC 206), H. V. Jayaram vs. Industrial Credit & Investment Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. (AIR 2000 SC 579 ). They have also submitted on the strength of the decision in Jagdish Chandra Nijhawan vs. S. K. Saraf (AIR 1999 SC 217) that the dispute between the parties was of civil nature. So, no criminal cases have been lodged against them. Learned counsel for the non-petitioners have supported the impugned concurrent judgments. They have contended which could not be controverted that this court has rejected SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 585/2002 Subedar Dixit vs. DCM Shriram Industries Ltd. on 9. 7. 2002 on identical facts and that order has become final and governs the present revision petitions also.
(3.) ACCORDING to them, the State Government has in exercise of powers vested in it under Section 11 (1) proviso of the Cr. P. C. has created/established vide notification dated 30. 1. 1980, the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jaipur as a Special Court w. e. f. February 15, 1980 with the territorial jurisdiction of the entire State of Rajasthan to try cases under the Acts mentioned therein including the Act. They have submitted that the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the court are clearly distinguishable on facts and do not in any way apply to the facts of the instant cases. So far as the decision in the case of Jagdish Chandra Nijhawan (supra) is concerned, it also has been decided on the particular facts of that case and similar facts are not there is the instant cases. They have pointed out that Section 630 of the Act does not apply only to the officers and employees of the company, but also to the petitioners even if they be treated to be workman. They have also pointed out that the matter subjudice before the Division Bench of this Court is not with regard to the termination/resignation of the services of the employees. In this regard, they have placed reliance of Baldev Krishna Sahi vs. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. & another reported of Company Cases Vol. 63 page 1, Atul Mathur vs. Atul Kalra and another (1989) 4 SCC 514, Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. vs. Dundayya Gurushiddaiah Hiremath and others (1991) 2 SCC 141, Abhilash Vinod Kumar Jain (Smt.) vs. Cox & Kings (India) Ltd. & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 732, P. N. Mobar vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 1997 (1) WLC (Raj.) 578 and Beguram vs. Jaipur Udhyog Limited - 1987 Company Cases Vol. 67 744. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have perused the judgments under challenge and the relevant record as well as the authorities cited at the bar. It is true as contended by the learned counsel for the non- petitioners that a co-ordinate bench of this Court has dismissed SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 585/02 Subedar Dixit vs. DCM Shriram Industries Ltd. (supra) on 9. 7. 2000 wherein the facts and the controversy involved were identical to the facts in these revision petitions. Admittedly, that judgment has become final and being on all fours applies to the present cases as well. So, the instant revisions being governed by the aforesaid judgments are liable to be dismissed on the basis of this judgment alone. ;