ASHOK KUMAR JAIN AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 389 · Decided: 08-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN AND ORS. 
A 
V. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 8, 1994 
[G.N. RAY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 482, Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947: Section 25-M and 25-0 Company not clearing dues of Electricity 
Board and claiming chronic shortage of power Supply Disconnection of 
electric connection to the Company's factories and establishments-
Company resorting to lay off without prior permission of the authority C 
concerned-Complaints filed by the Labour Department and cognizance 
taken by the Chief Judicial Magitrate -Criminal cases. Awarded on special 
facts of the case. 
The appellants, who are Chairman, Managing Director and other 
senior officials of a company, claimed that there was chronic shortage D 
of power supply, affecting the productive activities of the Company. 
Writ petitions were filed in the High Court for quashing the 
supplementary bills issued by the Electricity Board and they were 
dismissed. As the company failed to clear the dues, the Board 
disconnected electric connection to the company's factories and 
establishments. The Company resorted to lay-off of its workers without E 
obtaining prior permission of the authority concerned, and the Labour 
Department filed complaints before the Chief Judicial Magistrate who 
took cognizance of the offence under Section 25-M read with Section 
25-0 of the Industrial Desputes Act. Appellants move the High Court 
for quashing the complaint. The High Court held that taking of 
cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was not illegal or invalid F 
warranting quashing of the complaint. It, however, held that it was 
only just and proper that the Magistrate would hold an enquiry under 
Section 202 Cr. P.C. for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the 
appellants or any one of them could be held to be employer so that they 
could be summoned to stand trial for the offence. 
The present appeals were filed against the said judgment of the G 
High Court. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: In the special facts of the case and in the altered scenario, 
namely the company becoming sick and it being one in management of H 
389 
390 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R 
A 
the factories, the enquiry as directed by the High Court need not be 
-made and the criminal cases institutied against the appellants need not 
be pursued any further. Such course of action is not only within the 
scope and ambit of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but 
in the special facts of the case will also secure the ends of justice. 
Therefore, the criminal cases instituted against the appellants for the 
B 
alleged violation of Section 25-M of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are 
quashed. [392 H, 393 A) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 
182 to 187of1985. 
C 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.8.84 of the Patna High Court in 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Crl. W.J.C. No. 351of1983. 
R.K. Jain and Mr. P.R. Seetharaman for the Appellants. 
A.K. Srivastava for the Appellants in Crl. A. Nos. 182-186/85. 
Dr. Shankar Ghosh, R.P. Dave, R.A. Perumal, H.K. Dutt and Ambrish 
Kumar for the Respondents in C.A. No.807/82. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G.N. RAY, J. The appellants in these criminal appeals are Chairman, 
Managing Director and other senior officials in the management of the 
Rohtas Industries Limited a company registered under the Indian 
Companies Act and engaged in the manufacture and sale of variety of 
products namely cement, vanaspati, paper asbestos, cement porducts etc. 
The factories owned by the company were situated at Dalmianagar in the 
district of Rohtas, Bihar, wherein about 15000 workers were engaged. The 
Company had a contract with Bihar State Electricity Board for the supply of 
25000 KV A of electricity and the Company was to pay 75% of the . 
electricity charges irrespective of the fact whether such supply for running 
its factories and establishments were made. The case of the Company is that 
due to chronic shortage of power supply ever since 1981 varying between 
11.5 to 7.3 MW. of electricity per diem, the productive activities of the 
Company suffered immensely. The Electricity Board made demand for 
payment of Bill including enhanced fuel surcharge for the period 1977-80 
and 1980-81 which stood at Rs. 72,61,010, 70.00. The Company moved 
writ petitions in Patna High Court for quashing supplementary Bills but 
such wri~ petitions were dismissed. The Company'

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