Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
K K Uday Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 2 August, 2017
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
1. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.908/2012
R.C.Bhatia son of G.R.Bhatia, resident of O.Q.C.-3, J.K.Nagar, Kota
(Rajasthan).
---Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
---Non-Petitioner
2. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Private Limited, Arafat Nagar, Kota
through SSA Rizvi, Manager (Personnel & Industrial Relation)
-----Complainant-non-petitioner
Connected With
2. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 909 / 2012
S. K. Bagadi S/o G.D. Bagdi, R/o Bungalow No. 10, J.K. Nagar,
Kota (Rajasthan).
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
---Non-Petitioner
2. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through SSA Rizvi, Manager (Personnel and Industrial
Relation).
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
3. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 919 / 2012
G. C. Raka S/o Shri R.L. Raka, B/c Jain R/o Flat No. S.Q.A. - 7,
J.K. Nagar, Kota (Raj.)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
---Non-Petitioner
2. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.H.A. Rizvi, Manager (Working and Industrial Relations)
and Power of Attorney Holder.
(2 of 18)
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
4. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 920 / 2012
R C Agarwal S/o Shri N.C. Agarwal, B/C Mahajan, R/o Flat No.
O.Q.E. - 8, J.K. Nagar, Kota (Raj.)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
---Non-Petitioner
2. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.H.A. Rizvi, Manager (Working and Industrial
Relations) and Power of Attorney Holder.
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
5. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 921 / 2012
Kamal Kumar Sharma son of Shri R.P. Sharma, B/c Brahmin, R/o
Flat No. S.Q.G. - 15, J.K. Nagar, Kota (Raj.)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
---Non-Petitioner
2. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.H.A. Rizvi, Manager (Working and Industrial
Relations) and Power of Attorney Holder.
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
6. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 922 / 2012
V N Chobe S/o Shri R.N. Chobe, B/c Brahmin, R/o flat No. S.Q.E. -
6, J.K. Nagar, Kota (Raj.)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
---Non-Petitioner
2. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.H.A. Rizvi, Manager (Working and Industrial
Relations) and Power of Attorney Holder.
(3 of 18)
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
7. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 923 / 2012
N K Agarwal S/o Shri K.K. Gupta, B/c Mahajan, R/o Flat No.
O.Q.K. -5, J.K. Nagar, Kota (Raj.)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
---Non-Petitioner
2. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.H.A. Rizvi, Manager (Working and Industrial
Relation) and Power of Attorney Holder.
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
8. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 924 / 2012
N L Gupta S/o Shri M.L. Gupta, B/c Mahajan, R/o Banglow No. 25,
J.K. Nagar, Kota (Raj.)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
---Non-Petitioner
2. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.H.A. Rizvi, Manager (Working and Industrial
Relations) and Power of Attorney Holder.
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
9. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 925 / 2012
Suresh Chandra Dua S/o Shri R.D.M. Dua, B/c Panjabi, R/o Flat
No. S.Q.G. - 17, J.K. Nagar, Kota (Raj.)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
---Non-Petitioner
2. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.H.A. Rizvi, Manager (Working and Industrial
Relations) and Power of Attorney Holder.
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
(4 of 18)
10. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 926 / 2012
K K Uday Kumar S/o Shri P.K. Keshwan, B/c Hindu, R/o Flat no.
S.Q.G. - 16, J.K. Nagar, Kota (Raj.)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
---Non-Petitioner
2. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.H.A. Rizvi, Manager (Working and Industrial
Relations) and Power of Attorney Holder.
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
11. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 927 / 2012
Vivek Kathiyar S/o Shri B.S. Kathiyar, B/c Hindu, R/o Banglow No.
7, J.K. Nagar, Kota (Raj.)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
---Non-Petitioner
2. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.H.A. Rizvi, Manager (Working and Industrial
Relations) and Power of Attorney Holder.
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
12. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 928 / 2012
H R Mehta S/o Shri S.M. Mehta, R/o O.Q.C. - 05, J.K. Nagar, Kota
(Raj.).
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
---Non-Petitioner
2. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.S.A. Rijvi, Manager (Working and Industrial
Relations) and Power of Attorney Holder.
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
13. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 929 / 2012
(5 of 18)
V S Chauhan S/o Shri N.S. Chauhan, R/o Flat No. S.Q.C. - 16, J.K.
Nagar, Kota (Raj.).
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
---Non-Petitioner
2. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.S.A. Rijvi, Manager (Working and Industrial
Relations) and Power of Attorney Holder.
---Complainant-non-Petitioner
14. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 930 / 2012
Anoop Chaturvedi S/o Shri R.S. Chaturvedi, B/c Brahmin, R/o Flat
no. O.Q.F. - 6, J.K. Nagar, Kota (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
---Non-Petitioner
2. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.S.A. Rijvi, Manager (Working and Industrial
Relations) and Power of Attorney Holder.
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
15. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 931 / 2012
S. C. Choudhary S/o Shri A.C. Choudhary b/c Mahajan R/o
Banglow No. 5, J.K. Nagar, Kota (Raj.).
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
---Non-Petitioner
2. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.S.A. Rijvi, Manager (Working and Industrial
Relations) and Power of Attorney Holder.
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
16. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 932 / 2012
N.C. Chaturvedi S/o Shri L.M. Chaturvedi, B/c Brahmin, R/o Flat
no. S.Q.C. - 18, J.K. Nagar, Kota (Raj.)
(6 of 18)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
---Non-Petitioner
2. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.H.A. Rizvi, Manager (Working and Industrial
Relations) and Power of Attorney Holder.
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
17. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 969 / 2012
R.C. Saxena S/o Shri N.C. Saxena B/c Kayasth, R/o Banglow No.
27, J.K. Nagar, Kota (Raj.).
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
---Non-Petitioner
2. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.H.A. Rizvi, Manager (Working and Industrial
Relations) and Power of Attorney Holder.
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
18. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 970 / 2012
Ashutosh Pandey S/o Shri Shrimath Pandey B/c Brahmin, R/o flat
No. Banglow No. 13, J.K. Nagar, Kota (Raj.).
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
---Non-Petitioner
2. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.H.A. Rizvi, Manager (Working and Industrial
Relations) and Power of Attorney Holder.
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
19. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 971 / 2012
P.K. Jain S/o Shri H.C. Jain B/c Jain, R/o Flat No. S.Q.F.-20, J.K.
Nagar, Kota (Raj.)
(7 of 18)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
---Non-Petitioner
2. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.H.A. Rizvi, Manager (Working and Industrial
Relations) and Power of Attorney Holder.
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
20. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 623 / 2016
Somdutt Gupta S/o Shri P.S. Gupta, Ex-employee, R/o Flat No.
OQG-3, Arfat Nagar (J.K. Nagar), Heavy Industrial Area, Kota.
----Petitioner/ non-complainant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
2. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota-
324003, through Manager S.H.A. Rizvi s/o Shri S.H.A. Rizvi
(Personnel and Industrial Relations) and Power of Attorney
Holder.
----Respondent/ Complainant
21. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1373 / 2016
Vijay Kumar Gupta s/o Vishwanath Gupta, R/o Flat No. OQD-4,
Araphat Nagar (J.K. Nagar) Kota.
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.S.A. Rijvi (Personnel and Industrial Relations)
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
2. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
----non-Petitioner
22. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1374 / 2016
V. K. Shrivastava S/o C.M. Shrivastava B/c Kayasth, R/o Flat No.
OQD-17, Araphat Nagar (J.K. Nagar) Kota.
----Accused-Petitioner
(8 of 18)
Versus
1. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.S.A. Rijvi (Personnel and Industrial Relations)
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
2. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
----non-Petitioner
23. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1375 / 2016
S. K. Vatsal S/o S.N. Agarwal, B/c Mahajan, R/o Flat No. OQD-1,
J.K. Nagar, Kota.
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.S.A. Rijvi (Personnel and Industrial Relations)
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
2. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
----non-Petitioner
24. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1377 / 2016
P P Raghavan S/o Padnabhan R/o Flat No. OQD-14, Araphat Nagar
(J.K. Nagar) Kota.
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.S.A. Rijvi, (Personnel and Industrial Relations)
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
2. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
----non-Petitioner
25. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1378 / 2016
Anup Kumar Gupta S/o R P Gupta R/o Flat No. OQD- 11 Araphat
Nagar (J.K. Nagar) Kota.
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
(9 of 18)
1. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.S.A. Rijvi (Personnel and Industrial Relations)
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
2. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
----non-Petitioner
26. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1379 / 2016
S. C. Bhatnagar, S/o K.C. Bhatnagar B/c Kayasth, R/o Flat No.
OQD-02, Araphat Nagar (J.K. Nagar) Kota.
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.S.A. Rijvi (Personnel and Industrial Relations)
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
2. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
----non-Petitioner
27. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1590 / 2016
K. C. Jain, S/o R.P. Jain, R/o Flat No. OQF-2, Araphat Nagar (J.K.
Nagar) Kota.
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.S.A. Rijvi, Manager (Personnel and Industrial
Relations) and Power Attorney Holder.
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
2. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
----non-Petitioner
28. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1608 / 2016
Girish Kumar Gupta S/o R.D. Gupta, R/o Flat No. OQF-1, Araphat
Nagar (J.K. Nagar) Kota.
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.S.A. Rijvi (Personnel and Industrial Relations)
(10 of 18)
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
2. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
----non-Petitioner
29. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1609 / 2016
Prakash Puranik S/o Shri V.G. Puranik, R/o Flat No. OQD-2
Araphat Nagar (J.K. Nagar) Kota.
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Arafat Nagar, Kota
through S.S.A. Rijvi (Personnel and Industrial Relations)
----Complainant-non-Petitioner
2. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
----non-Petitioner
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Dr.Mahesh Sharma, Mr.Lokesh Sharma,
Mr.Deepak Chauhan with Mr.Sivraj Chauhan
Mr.Prateek Kasliwal
Mr.Bhagwat Singh Rajawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, PP
Mr.Suresh Sahni with Mr.R.M.Sharma,
Mr.Ankit Agarwal Mr.M.S.Solanki
Mr.Anurag Agarwal
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order
DATE OF ORDER 2.08.2017
BY THE COURT:-
1. Petitioners have preferred revision petitions No.623/2016, 1373/2016, 1374/2016, 1375/2016, 1377/2016, 1378/2016, 1379/2016, 1590/2016, 1608/2016 and 1609/2016 aggrieved by order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan by which he dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioners and (11 of 18) maintained the order passed by Additional Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence), Jaipur Metro by which the Court convicted the petitioners for offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 and directed the petitioners to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the complainant within a period of two months failing which petitioners were to suffer one year simple imprisonment. The trial Court also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-.
2. Aggrieved by order of conviction passed under Section 630 of the Companies Act affirmed by the appellate Court Revision Petitions No.908/2012, 909/2012, 919/2012, 920/2012, 921/2012, 922/2012, 923/2012, 924/2012, 925/2012, 926/2012, 927/2012, 928/2012, 929/2012, 930/2012, 931/2012, 932/2012, 969/2012, 970/2012 and 971/2012 were earlier filed and allowed by the High Court on 2.9.2015 and the matter was remanded to the Court below to pass orders in accordance with law. Respondent No.2-herein filed SLP (Criminal) before the Apex Court and vide order dated 21.10.2016 the Apex Court set aside the judgment of High Court dated 2.9.2015 and passed the following order:-
"We, thus, allow these appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court on the aforesaid ground and remit back the cases to the High Court to decide these cases in accordance with law."
3. The matters have come-up before this Court for adjudication in accordance with law.
4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No.2-M/s Arafat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. filed a complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act alleging therein that respondent No.2-M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., M/s J.K. (12 of 18) Synthetics Limited and the staff association and Employees Union entered into two Tripartite agreements on 9.10.2002 and 22.10.2002. As per the Tripartite agreements the management of M/s J.K. Synthetics Limited was taken over by M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd as due to strike and agitation lockout was declared by M/s J.K. Synthetics Limited. on 12.9.97.
5. As per the Tripartite agreement services of employees/staff including that of petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 12.9.1997. An averment was made in the complaint that the petitioner was occupant of the premises in dispute as an employee of M/s J.K. Synthetics Ltd. and after termination of his service he was liable to vacate the premises but he failed to do so despite service of legal notice upon him to hand over the premises in dispute.
6. The employees were paid or offered the amount which was settled in the Tripartite agreement but the employees continued to withhold the possession of the accommodation which were given to them by M/s J.K. Synthetics Limited. It was averred that by not vacating and handing over possession the petitioner has committed offence punishable under Section 630 of the Companies Act.
7. The Court below convicted the petitioners for offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act and directed the petitioners to hand over the vacant possession of the premises within a period of two months to respondent No.2, which order was upheld by the appellate Court.
8. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the provisions of Section 630 of the Companies Act is not applicable (13 of 18) as the petitioners are not employees of respondent No.2-M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt.Ltd.
9. It is also contended that as per Section 630 of the Companies Act the complaint can be filed by the company or any creditor or contributor thereof. Since M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. is neither company nor creditor or contributor it has no locus standi to file the complaint.
10. It is also contended that as per Section 468 of Cr.P.C., Court is barred from taking cognizance and cannot take cognizance beyond six months if the offence is punishable with fine only.
11. It is also contended that aforesaid original documents/papers were not exhibited by the complainant and certified copies have no legal value.
12. It is also contended that the petitioners were residing in the premises as employees of M/s J.K. Synthetic Limited and are still residing as employees of M/s J.K. Synthetic Limited as possession was not transferred to M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
13. Yet another limb of argument is that writ petitions are pending before Rajasthan High Court where tripartite agreement is under challenge.
14. Written arguments have been submitted on behalf of the petitioners wherein it is mentioned that the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench has no applicability to the present revision petitions as the judgment suffers from the infirmity of it being sub silentio and per incuriam. It is contended in the (14 of 18) written arguments that the order dated 3.1.2017 does not lay down any law nor it gives any reason nor scope and application of the statutory provisions. Reliance has been placed on "Dr. (Smt.) Sushila Devi Vs. Director of Higher Education and Anr." 2003 (3) ALR 79, "State of Rajasthan and Anr. Vs. R.C.Misra and Ors." RLW 2003 (1) 155 and "Dr.Sameer Anant Deshpande Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors." 2002 (1) ALLMR 510.
15. Counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed the revision petitions. His contention is that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has decided a similar revision petition bearing Criminal Revision No.718/2016 Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another vide order dated 3.1.2017. It has dealt with all the arguments raised herein and the issue is no more res integra.
16. It is also contended that as per tripartite agreement except Ashutosh Pandey and R.C.Saxena, who purposely avoided receiving the amount and R.C.Bhatia who refused to accept, all other petitioners have taken the compensation.
17. It is also contended that the petitioners have no legal right to withhold possession as 15 employees from amongst the petitioners would have retired by now.
18. In reply to the ground of complaint, being barred by limitation. It is argued that refusal to vacate the premises is a continuing offence. In this regard counsel for Respondent has placed reliance on "Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. Vs. Balu Jeevappa Upparatti & Anr." Reported in (1991) 2 SCC 142, wherein the Apex Court held that refusal to vacate (15 of 18) company's quarter after retirement or termination of service constitutes a continuing offence within the meaning of Section 472 Cr.P.C. and hence, period of limitation under Section 468 (2)
(a) Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance of the offence is inapplicable.
19. In reply to the ground that original documents were not exhibited it is contended that the original documents were filed in one case and certified copies were exhibited in the other cases and that any objection with regard to exhibiting of a document can be taken only at the stage when the document is exhibited and not thereafter.
20. It is also contended that the respondent No.2-M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. had locus standi to file the complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act as respondent No.2-M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. stepped into the shoe of M/s J.K. Synthetics Limited after the tripartite agreement and as the employee ceased to be employees of M/s J.K. Synthetics Limited they were wrongfully withholding the possession thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity.
21. It is contended that the doctrine of sub silentio and per incuriam would not apply to the facts of the present case as the grounds raised by the petitioner before this Court has been dealt with by the Co-ordinate Bench in Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra).
22. With regard to the contention of pendency of writ petitions, it is contended that the tripartite agreement was challenged before the Delhi High Court by Rajasthan Trade Union which was dismissed by Delhi High Court.
(16 of 18)
23. I have considered the contentions.
24. It is pertinent to note that in the tripartite agreement following conditions were incorporated:
"11. The accommodation available in the residential colony will be provided to the new employees based on the nature of their duties, status and working requirement. Hence, they may be allotted/reallocated different accommodation and/or if required be asked to vacate such accommodation in their possession. APPL will be entitled to ask those erstwhile employees having possession of residential accommodation in the colony and do not find jobs in APPL to vacate such accommodation. The Staff Association shall fully co-operate and assist APPL in this regard."
"C-1. Whereas on the basis of the discussions held amongst the representative of JKSL, APPL and Staff Association the dues of the workmen/employees shall accrue up to the cut-off dates and have been calculated and determined in Annexure-B to this agreement (any arithmetic calculation for salary errors shall be rectified) and this liability has been agreed upon as full and final settlement of all dues, claims and compensations under all heads of any nature statutory or otherwise including gratuity for the past services and no further claim shall lie against JKSL/APPL. The erstwhile employment ceases on the cut-off dates."
25. The cut-off date as per tripartite agreement was 11.9.1997 and 31.9.1997. Thus, as per the tripartite agreement the erstwhile employment ceased to be employee on the cut-off date and as per clause 11, respondent No.2-M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. was entitled to ask the employees to vacate the accommodation. Thus, M/s Arafat Petro Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. was entitled to file complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act.
26. As the Unit of M/s J.K. Synthetic Limited situated at Kota alongwith residential colony vested in the respondent-company and services stood terminated with effect from 12.9.1997 no right of any kind subsisted with the petitioners to retain the possession of the accommodation. The respondent-company (17 of 18) stepped into the shoe of M/s J.K.Synthetic Limited and was entitled to file complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act. The term includes both present and past officers and employees thus, after termination of service proceedings can be initiated under Section 630 of the Companies Act as held in "Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. Vs. Balu Jeevappa Upparatti & Anr." (supra).
27. The contention that the complainant is neither company nor creditors nor a contributory also do not have any force because the complainant falls in the definition of the company as M/s Arfat Petro Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. in terms of the Tripartite agreement has stepped into the shoes of M/s J.K.Synthetics Limited and as per the Tripartite agreement was entitled to get the premises vacated from the employees.
28. The ground of non-production of original documents has no force as the original documents were produced in one case and certified copy of the same were exhibited in the other cases, even otherwise any objection with regard to exhibiting of documents can be taken only at the stage when the document is exhibited in Court.
29. With regard to complaint being barred by limitation, suffice it to say, that the offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act is a continuing offence as held by the Apex Court in "Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. Vs. Balu Jeevappa Upparatti & Anr." (supra).
30. The grounds raised by the petitioners before this Court have been elaborately dealt by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (18 of 18) in Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.718/2016) decided on 3.1.2017.
31. The judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner have no applicability to the facts of this case as the arguments advanced before this Court were considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra) the doctrine of sub silentio and per incuriam also do not have any applicability to the facts of the present case.
32. As regard pendency of writ petitions before the High Court wherein tripartite agreement has been challenged, the same do not have any bearing on the present proceedings as the tripartite agreement was earlier challenged before the Delhi High Court and the Trade Union's petition was dismissed by the Delhi High Court.
33. No new ground has been urged before this Court which was not urged before the Rajasthan High Court in Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.718/2016. The issue therefore, is no more res integra.
34. The orders passed by the Court below do not suffer from any perversity so as to exercise the revisional jurisdiction.
35. The revision petitions are accordingly dismissed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI)J. teekam Reserved orders