H.C.MISHRA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party No.2, though it appears that counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of opposite party No.2.
(2.) THE petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 29.4.2006 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate I/c, Dhanbad, in I.D. Case No. 85 of 2006, whereby the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners and other officials of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, for the offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), for non -implementation of the Award in question. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against them in the said case.
(3.) THE petitioners are the Bharat Coking Coal Limited, through its Company Secretary, and the Director (Personnel) of the said Company, and they have challenged the impugned order, as also the entire criminal proceeding against them, taking a short point that they are not the persons responsible for implementation of the Award within the meaning of Section 29 of the said Act. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Bharat Coking Coal Limited had already issued letter dated 4.11.1998 to the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad, followed by another letter dated 8/9.5.2001, whereby the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad, was informed that the Company had specified the officers mentioned in the annexure to the said letter, to be the authorities prescribed under Section 2(g) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in respect of establishment under their respective jurisdiction. In the said letters, it is mentioned that the concerned Executives would be competent inter alia, for implementation of Award, in respect of the industrial disputes in the capacity of Employers. Both these letters have been brought on record as Annexures -2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the same question was involved before this Court in M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors, 2002 1 JLJR 811. In the said matter, notices were issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner to the Chairman -cum -Managing Director as also to the Secretary of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, to show cause as to why legal action for their prosecution under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act be not taken for alleged violation of the settlement and the Award passed by the Labour Court and the Tribunal. In the said case, the learned Single Judge of this Court took the notice of the letter dated 4.11.1998 (Annexure -2) and held that since the Company had already prescribed the persons, who shall be responsible for non -implementation of the Award, the Assistant Labour Commissioner was not justified in issuing the show cause to the Chairman -cum -Managing Director and the Secretary of the Company. Learned counsel has submitted that the same view has been taken in the subsequent decision by this Court in Shri Kedar Nath Mukhopadhyay and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr, 2008 2 JLJR 447, wherein, relying upon the aforesaid decision in Bharat Coking Coal Limited case , and also taking into consideration of the letter dated 4.11.1998, this Court has held that the prosecution launched for the offence under Section 29 of the Act against the Company Secretary and the Director (Personnel) of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, was bad in law and accordingly, the entire prosecution was quashed. It is submitted that in the present case also, the petitioners are the same Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Company Secretary and Director (Personnel) of the said Company, and accordingly, the present case is fully covered by the aforesaid decisions. Learned counsel has again submitted that even thereafter, the same view has been taken by this Court in M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr.,2013 4 JCR 230(Jhr). Placing reliance all these decisions, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order, as also the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners cannot be sustained in the eye of law. ;