ANDHERI MAROL KURLA BUS SERVICE & ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 734 · Decided: 21-04-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

I959 
Ranjit Singh 
v. 
Tlic State of 
Punjab 
J;·apur j. 
• 
I959 
April 21. 
734 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
The appellant relied upon a judgment of the Allaha-
bad High Court in Emperor v. Lachmi Narain (1). But 
unless there was something peculiar in the facts of 
that case it cannot be considered to be good law. It 
does not even take into consideration Explanation 2 of 
s. 191. 
Lastly it was urged that the· procedure adopted by 
the Magistrate was erroneous in that he did not hold 
an enquiry as required·under ss. 200 and 202, Crimi-
nal Procedure Code, the former of which is expressly 
mentioned in sub-section 2 of s. 476, Criminal Pro-
cedure Code. That contention is equally untenable 
because under s. 200, proviso (aa) it is not necessary 
for a Magistrate when a complaint is made by a court 
io examine the complainant and neither s. 200 nor 
s. 202 requires a preliminary enquiry before the Magis-
trate can assume jurisdiction to issue process against 
the person complained against. 
In our opinion the appellant has been rightly con-
victed and we would therefore dismiss this appeal. 
Appeal dismissed . 
. 
ANDHERI MAROL KURLA BUS SERVICE 
& ANOTHER 
v. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY 
(JAFER IMAM and J. L. KAPUR, JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute-Conciliation proceedings-Pendency of-
Whether terminate on expiry of I4 days-Industrial Disputes Act, 
I947 (XIV of r947) SS. I2(6), 20(2), JI(I) and 33(I). 
Conciliation proceedings were started in January r952 with 
respect to some disputes between appellant l and its workmen. On 
May g, 1952, the Union and on June 2, 1952, the appellant l indi-
cated to the Conciliation Officer that the negotiations had failed. 
In the meantime on March 18, 1952, the appellant 1 dismissed 
(1) I.L.R. 1947 All. 155· 
(2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
735 
one of its workmen. 
The two appellants and three others were 
r959 
prosecuted under s. 31 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for a 
breach of s. 33 for dismissing a workman during the pendency of 
Andheri Marol 
the conciliation proceedings. 
The appellants contended that Kurla Bus Service 
since s. 12(6) required the report of the conciliation proceedings 
& Another 
to be submitted within r4 days of the commencement thereof, 
v. 
the proceedings had terminated on the expiry of the 14 days and 
The State of 
the dismissal was, therefore, not during the pendency of the con-
Bomb2y 
ciliation proceedings. 
Held that, in cases where no settlement was arrived at the 
conciliation proceedings terminated when the report of the 
Conciliation Officer was received by the appropriate Government 
and not on the expiry of 14 days from the commencement of the 
proceedings. The commencement and termination of conciliation 
proceedings were determined bys. 20 and not bys. 12(6). The 
dismissal of the workman was during the pendency of the con-
ciliation proceedings and the appellants were guilty under s. 31(1) 
of the Act. 
Workers of the Industry Colliery, Dhanbad v. Management of 
the Industry Colliery, [r953] S.C.R. 428; Colliery Mazdoor Con-
gress, Asansol v. New Beerbhoorn Coal Co. Ltd., 1952 L.A.C. 219, 
applied. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 46 of 1957. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated the February 4, 1955, of the Bombay 
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1256 of 1954, 
arising out of the judgment and order dated June 19, 
1954, of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, in 
Case No. 176/S of 1953. 
Hardayal Hardy, for the appellants. 
H.J. Umrigar and R.H. Dhebar, for the respon-
dent. 
1959. April 21. 
The Judgmen~ of the Court was 
delivered by 
KAPUR, J.-This is an appeal by special leave 
against the judgment and order of the High Court of 
Bombay reversing the judgment of the Chief Presi-
dency Magistrate, Bombay, and thus convicting accus-
ed Nos. 1 & 5 under s. 31(1) read withs. 33(1) of the 
Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947) (hereinafter 
called the Act) and sentencing accused No. 1 to a fine 
of Rs. 250 and accused No. 5 to a fine of Rs. 50. 
Kapur]. 
736 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1959) Supp. 
'959 
The appellants are the Andheri Marol Kurla Bus 
dh 
. M 
1 Service who was accused No. I (now app'ellant No. I) 
An "' "'° 
. d · 
M 
H M l'h 
I 
d N 
5 
Kuda Bu' service an its 
anager 
.. 
. '- an w lO was accuse 
I· o. 
"°Another 
(now appellant No. 2). 
Some disputes arose between 
v. 
the appellant No. I and its workmen. On December 
The State of 
13, 1951, the Conciliation

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.