ANDHERI MAROL KURLA BUS SERVICE Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay reversing the judgment of the Chief Presidency Magistrate Bombay and thus convicting accused Nos. 1 and 5 under S. 31 (1) read with S. 33 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act) and sentencing accused No.1 to a fine of Rs. 250 and accused No.5 to a fine of Rs.50.

(2.) The appellants are the Andheri Marol Kurla Bus Service who was accused No.1 (now appellant No.1) and its Manager H.M. Khan who was accused No.5 (now appellant No.2) Some disputes arose between the appellant No.1 and its workment. On December 13,1951, the conciliation Officer wrote to the appellant No.1 and enclosed the demands of the Union which were dated August 9, 1951. On December 31, 1951, the appellant No.1 appeared before the Conciliation the Officer on January 9, 1952, and after getting one adjournment the appellant No.1 appeared before the Conciliation Officer on January 17, 1952, and filed its Written Statement and raised various objections. The next date of hearing was January 31, 1952, and the proceedings went on till June 2, 1952 when the appellant No.1 wrote to the Conciliation Officer saying that no useful purpose would be served by holding any further meetings. On May 9, 1952, the Union had also indicated to the Conciliation Officer that the negotiations had failed. On March 18, 1952 the appellant dismissed Louis Perira, a bus conductor and proceedings were taken on a complaint by Assistant Commissioner of Labour under Ss. 33 read with S. 31 of the Act against 5 accused persons the two appellants and the partners of appellant No. 1. The Chief Presidency Magistrate acquitted all the accused including the appellants and held that as the conciliation proceedings had continued for a period of more than 14 days as from January. 17, 1952, further proceedings for conciliation were illegal and therefore the accused persons could not be convicted under S. 31(1) of the Act. The State took an appeal to the High Court and the judgment of acquittal was reversed and of the accused persons the two appellants were convicted and the others were acquitted. The two appellants have appealed by special leave.

(3.) The question for decision is whether the conciliation proceedings could be said to be pending when Louis Pereira was dismissed. If the answer is in the affirmative then the appellants have been properly convicted and if not the conviction must be set aside. Section 31(1) makes the contravention of the provision of S. 33 of the Act an offence punishable with imprisonment for a period which may extend to six months or with fine or with both.