Bangalore District Court
South India Steel Industries vs R.Garg on 5 December, 2025
KABC030274982007
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ACJM BENGALURU CITY
C.C.No.27930/2007
Dated this the 05th Day of December, 2025
Before : Sri. MANJUNATH D. R.,
B.sc, LL.B.,
VI Addl. C.J.M BENGALURU CITY.
Complainant : South Indian Steel Industries
Employees Union,
CILC House U-128, 2nd Cross,
Gauthamanagar,
Sriramapuram,
Bengalore - 21.
Represented by its Workmen
& Union Office Bearer
Ramanjinappa.
(By Advocate A.J.S.)
-Versus-
Accused : The Management of
M/s. South India Steels Industries
Pvt. Ltd.,
White filed Road,
Bangalore.
Represented by its Directors
1. Sanjay Garg, Director,
S/o Ramautar Garg,
2. Smt. Uma, Director
2
C.C.No.27930/2007
3. Pankaj Garg, Director
Sl. No.1 and 3 are
R/at No. L-370, HSR Layout,
7th Sector, 5th Main,
Bangalore - 560 034.
Registered office of
Sl. No.1 to 3 are at
M/s South India Steel Industries,
No.54/28, K. S. Garden,
Lalbagh Road, 4th Cross,
Bangalore - 560 027.
(Shri. J.C.K. Advocate for
Accused)
Date of taking cognizance : 20.02.2007
Offences Registered
against accused : 29 of the Industrial Dispute
Act.
Date of commencing
evidence : 21.08.2024
Date of Judgment
pronounced : 05.12.2025
Duration of 18 09 15
Judgment : Year/s Month/s Day's
(MANJUNATH D.R.)
VI Addl. CJM., Bengaluru City.
**** *
3
C.C.No.27930/2007
JUDGMENT
1. The complainant has filed the private complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offences punishable under section 29 of the Industrial Dispute Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-
The complainant is the office bearer of South India Steel Industries Employees Union and there were 25 workmen working under the accused management as workmen for several years and 25 workmen were refused employment from 01.09.1989 and last workmen was refused on 01.04.1990 by the accused management. Thereafter the complainant union raised a dispute before the concillation and the same came to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under section 10(1) ( C ) of the Industrial Disputes Act and 2nd Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru in Ref. No.2/1991 after adjudicating the disputes passed an award in favour of the complainant union by its award dated 23.04.2004. The accused company was aware of the award but accused has not implemented the award passed by the Labour court. Therefore the complainant union made several 4 C.C.No.27930/2007 representation requesting the accused management to implement the award passed by the Labour court. The accused management has not implemented the award. Therefore the complainant union made a representation dated 07.01.2005 to the Labour Commissioner seeking permission to prosecute the accused management for non implementation of the award dated 23.04.2004 and Labour Commissioner granted the permission by his order dated 02.04.2005 to prosecute the accused management and therefore the complainant union has filed this private complaint against the accused for non compliance of the award passed by the Labour court for the offence punishable under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act and prays for initiating the proceedings under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act and pass suitable orders against the accused.
3. After taking cognizance, this court issued summons to the accused and they are appeared through their counsel and enlarged on bail. Plea of the accused is recorded and they have not pleaded guilty of alleged offences and claimed to be tried.
5C.C.No.27930/2007
4. The complainant in order to prove the case, examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to 9.
5. 313 statement of the accused is recorded and they have denied all the incriminating materials found against them. The accused no.1 is examined himself as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1.
6. I heard learned counsel for the complainant and and learned counsel appearing for the accused and perused the written arguments.
7. The points that arose for my consideration are:
:: P O I N T S ::
Point No.1 : Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused management employed 25 workmen in the South Indian Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., and the said 25 workmen were removed from the employment without any reasons and after conciliation, the matter was referred to the Labour court in Ref. No.02/1991 and the Labour court by order dated 23.04.2004 passed an award against the accused management and inspite of the order passed by the Labour court, the 6 C.C.No.27930/2007 accused management has not implemented the award and thereby the accused have committed the offence punishable under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act ?
Point No.2. What award?
8. After going through the records and hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the accused and after going through the written arguments. I answer the above points as under :
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 : The complainant in order to prove its case examined himself as PW1 and got marked certified copy of the award passed by the Labour court order dated 23.04.2004 in Ref. No.02/1991 at Ex.P1, Representation at Ex.P2, certified copy of the permission order at Ex.P3, the documents containing 5 pages to show that, accused company is functioning at Ex.P4, the documents containing the accused company details at Ex.P5, the documents 7 C.C.No.27930/2007 showing that, accused no.1 to 3 are the directors of the accused company at Ex.P6, documents pertaining to the accused no.3 at Ex.P7, the documents pertaining to accused no.1 at Ex.P8, section 65B certificate for production of the Ex.P4 to 8 at Ex.P9. On the other hand, the accused no.1 is examined as DW1 and got marked a copy of the order of Board for Industrial and Financial reconstruction at Ex.D1.
10. The complainant is examined as PW1 in his evidence has deposed that, the complainant is the office bearer of South India Steel Industries Employees Union and there were 25 workmen working under the accused management as workmen for several years and 25 workmen were refused employment from 01.09.1989 and last workmen was refused on 01.04.1990 by the accused management. Thereafter the complainant union raised a dispute before the conciliation and the same came to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under section 10(1) ( C ) of the Industrial Disputes Act and 2nd Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru in Ref. No.2/1991 after adjudicating the disputes passed an award in 8 C.C.No.27930/2007 favour of the complainant union by its award dated 23.04.2004. The accused company was aware of the award but accused has not implemented the award passed by the Labour court. Therefore the complainant union made several representation requesting the accused management to implement the award passed by the Labour court. The accused management has not implemented the award. Therefore the complainant union made a representation dated 07.01.2005 to the Labour Commissioner seeking permission to prosecute the accused management for non implementation of the award dated 23.04.2004 and Labour Commissioner granted the permission by his order dated 02.04.2005 to prosecute the accused management and therefore the complainant union has filed this private compliant against the accused for non compliance of the award passed by the Labour court for the offence punishable under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
11. The PW1 has produced the certified copy of the order of the Labour court at Ex.P1 which discloses that, the Hon'ble Labour Court by its 9 C.C.No.27930/2007 award dated 23.04.2004 allowed the reference No.02/1991 and directed the accused management to pay the retrenchment compensation as well as closure compensation to each of the first party workmen as required under the Industrial Disputes Act. The PW1 has produced the notice issued by the complainant Union to the accused management requesting them to implement the award passed by the Hon'ble Labour Court and further produced the permission letter passed by the Labour commissioner who authorized the complainant union to prosecute the accused for non implementation of the award passed by the Labour court for the offences punishable under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
12. The PW1 is cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused and suggested that, the 25 workmen who are entitled for relief till the year 1989 and they are not at all entitled for any relief after the year 1989 and the complainant has no authority to appear on behalf of the workmen and complaint is not maintainable. But all these suggestions were denied by the PW1 and nothing worthy was elicited 10 C.C.No.27930/2007 in the course of the cross-examination in favour of the prosecution. The PW1 in his evidence further deposed that, the accused company is still functioning and he has produced the documents pertaining to the same along with 65B certificate at Ex.P4 to 9 which discloses that, the accused company is still functioning. The counsel for the accused has not at all cross-examined the PW1 regarding functioning of the accused company.
13. The accused no.1 on the other hand is examined as DW1 and in his evidence he has deposed that, he has been the director of the company since 2014 and his father established the accused company and accused no.2 and 3 are also the directors of the accused company and he has further deposed that, the company closed all its operations in the year 1998 and it gone into loss and therefore in the year 1999 Bankers and KSFC took over all the assets of the company and in the year 2000 the company was referred to BIFR (Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction) and the case number was 80/2000 and the BIFR by order dated 25.01.2001 declares the company as sick 11 C.C.No.27930/2007 industry and he has produced the copy of the BIFR order at Ex.D1 and he has deposed that, the company is not at all operative since 1998 and he does not know whether the complainant and its members are the employees of his company and deposed that, he is not liable for any relief claimed by the complainant and its members and prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
14. DW1 is cross-examined and in the cross- examination he has clearly admitted that, the company is still in existence and he has further admitted that, the company is showing profit and loss statement of the company to the Registrar of the company and further admitted that, the accused no.1 to 3 are the directors of the company.
The very admissions made by the DW1 in the cross-examination is extracted below for better appropriation.
" ಕಂಪನಿ ಈಗಲೂ ಅಸ್ದಿತ್ವದಲ್ಲಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಪ್ರತಿ ವರ್ಷ ಕಂಪನಿಯು ಪ್ರಾಫಿಟ್ ಅಂಡ್ ಲಾಸ್ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಸ್ಟೆೇಟ್ಮೆಂಟ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ರಿಜಿಸ್ಟ್ರರ ರ್ ಆಫ್ ಕಂಪನಿಗೆ ಕಳುಹಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ."12
C.C.No.27930/2007
15. I have carefully perused the award passed by the Labour court and the memo of calculation submitted by the counsel for the accused and also the objection filed by the counsel for the complainant to the memo of calculation. The 25 workmen and their names and the year in which they were employed in the accused management and the date of refusal of the employment and the number of years they have completed service and also their last salary drawn per month. The names of the employees, their joining date, their date of refusal of the employment, the number of completed years and their service and their last salary per month is extracted below for better appreciation and the below details are not at all disputed by the parties.
Sl. Employees Joining Date of No. of Last Drawn
No. Name Date Refusal/ completed salary per
Retrenchme years of month
nt service month (in
Rs.)
1. Ramanjanappa 1986 01.09.1989 3 650
2. Narasimhaiah 1987 01.09.1989 2 600
3. Shyamanna 1988 01.09.1989 1 600
4. Salam Pasha 1987 01.09.1989 2 600
5. Kumar 1988 01.09.1989 1 600
6. Parthiba 1988 01.09.1989 1 450
13
C.C.No.27930/2007
7. Anthony 1988 01.09.1989 1 600
8. Murthy 1988 01.09.1989 1 550
9. Chandrapal 1987 01.09.1989 2 800
10. Krishnappa 1986 01.09.1989 3 450
11. Francis 1988 01.09.1989 1 450
12. Rahim Khan 1986 01.09.1989 3 600
13. Shyamkutty 1987 01.09.1989 2 800
14. Mani 1987 01.09.1989 2 600
15. Narayanaswamy 1987 01.09.1989 2 730
16. Krishnappa 1986 01.09.1989 3 600
17. Dharanram 1986 01.09.1989 3 700
18. Pallappa 1987 01.09.1989 2 450
19. Indrasingh 1987 01.09.1989 2 700
20. Dinesh 1987 01.09.1989 2 600
21. Hariram 1987 01.09.1989 2 800
22. Nagaraj 1987 01.09.1989 2 650
23. Munikrishna 1986 01.09.1989 3 600
24. Moula 1987 01.09.1989 2 1600
25. Suresh 1984 01.09.1989 5 1250
16. The counsel for accused argues that, the complainant is not at all authorized person to file the complaint and complaint is not maintainable under law and prays for dismissal of the complaint. I have carefully perused Ex.P3 which is an authorization given by the Labour Commissioner by his order dated 26.04.2007 and he has authorized the employee Union, CILC house, U128, 2 nd Cross, 14 C.C.No.27930/2007 Gowthamnagar, Bengaluru to prosecute the accused for not honoring the award passed by the Labour court and Labour commissioner has authorized the Union to prosecute the accused for the offence punishable under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Shri. M. B. Ramu the president of the employee union filed the complaint and during pendency of the case, he was died and complaint is amended and the employee cum office bearer of the union namely Ramanjanappa has continued the complaint. Therefore the complainant is the workman cum office bearer of the M/s South India Steels Industries Pvt. Ltd., and is authorized by the Labour Commissioner to prosecute the case against the accused on behalf of all the workmen, Therefore complaint is maintainable under law.
17. The counsel for the accused argues that, the accused industry is declared as Sick Industry as per the order of BIFR and he has produced the same at Ex.D1 and contend that, the proceedings against the accused company cannot be continued and no legal proceedings for execution or recovery or enforcement of monetary or service claims can proceed against a 15 C.C.No.27930/2007 Sick Industrial Company without approval of BIFR and contends that, complaint is not maintainable against the accused and prays for dismissal of the complaint and in order to support his contentions, the counsel for the accused has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Raheja Universal Ltd., Vs. NRC Ltd., & Ors., reported in (2012) 4 SCC 148 and Gram Panchayat Vs., Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd., reported in (1990)2 SCC 440.
18. I have carefully perused the section 22(3) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985 which is extracted below for better appreciation " Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc (1) Where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry under section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under section 17 is under preparation on consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or any other 16 C.C.No.27930/2007 law or the memorandum and articles of association of the industrial company or any other instrument having effect under the said Act or other law, no proceedings in for the winding up of the industrial company or for execution, distress of the like against any of the properties of the industrial company or for the appointment of a receiver in respect thereof (and no suit for the recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security against the industrial company nor of any guarantee in respect of any loans or advance granted to the industrial company) shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority.
(2) Where the management of the sick industrial company is taken over or changed (in pursuance of any scheme sanctioned under section 181 notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or other law or in the memorandum and articles of association 17 C.C.No.27930/2007 of such company or any instrument having effect under the said Act or other law-
(a) it shall not be lawful for the shareholders of such company or any other person to nominate or appoint any person to be a director of the company.
(b) no resolution passed at any meeting of the shareholders of such company shall be given effect to unless approved by the Board. (3)[Where an inquiry under section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to in section 17 is under preparation or during the period) of consideration of any scheme under section 18 or where any such scheme is sanctioned thereunder, for due implementation of the scheme, the Board may by order declare with respect to the sick industrial company concerned that the operation of all or any of the contracts, assurances of property, agreements, settlements, awards, standing orders or other instruments in force, to which such sick industrial company is a party or which may be applicable to such sick industrial company 18 C.C.No.27930/2007 immediately before the date of such order, shall remain suspended or that all or any of the rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities accruing or arising thereunder before the said date, shall remain suspended or shall be enforceable with such adaptations and in such manner as may be specified by the Board:
Provided that such declaration shall not be made for a period exceeding two years which may be extended by one year at a time so, however, that the total period shall not exceed seven years in the aggregate."
19. The section 22(3) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act clearly discloses that, the Board has got authority to declare that, the operation of the company remained suspended and such declaration should not be made for a period exceeding two years and which may be extended by one year at a time. However the total period shall not exceed 7 years in the aggregate. The section 22 (3) has clearly established the BIFR shall declare that, operation of the company is suspended and declaration shall not exceed 7 years in the aggregate.
19C.C.No.27930/2007 In this instant case, the counsel for the accused has not placed any record before the court to show that, such declaration is made by the BIFR not to proceed against the accused for implementation of the award passed by the Labour Court and there is no declaration under section 22(3) of the Sick Industrial companies Act by the BIFR. The records and the admissions made by the accused DW1 clearly discloses that, the company is still functioning and there is no bar under law to implement the award passed by the Labour court. Therefore the above cited decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Raheja Universal Ltd., Vs., NRC Ltd., & Ors and Gram Panchayat Vs., Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd., stated supra are not applicable to the case on hand in view of the different facts and circumstance of the case.
20. The counsel for complainant argues that, the workmen are entitled for retrenchment compensation and closure compensation from the date of refusal of employment and argues that, the workman are entitled for their average salary from 01.09.1989 till the passing of the award and prays 20 C.C.No.27930/2007 this court to consider the minimum wages of the relevant period and calculate their average salary from 01.09.1989 till the passing of the award and impose the fine by calculating their average salary from the date 01.09.1989 till the passing of the judgments of this court and prays for allowing the complaint.
21. The counsel for the accused on the other hand argues that, the memo of calculation filed by the complainant is not at all in accordance with law and contends that, the workman are entitled only the statutory benefits provided under the law and they are not entitled for continuing wages and in order to support his contention he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Punjab Land Development Vs., Presiding Officer Labour court reported in 1990 (3) SCC 682. The counsel for the accused further argues that, the workmen are entitled for statutory amounts specified under the Industrial Disputes Acts as per the award passed by the Labour court under the Ex.P1, workmen are entitled only the retrenchment compensation and closure 21 C.C.No.27930/2007 compensation and in order to support his contention he has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Pramod Jha & Ors Vs., State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2003 (4) SCC 619. I have carefully perused the award passed by the Labour court which is produced at Ex.P1. The Hon'ble Labour court passed an award directing the accused management to pay retrenchment compensation as well as closure compensation to each of the workmen as required under section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
22. I have carefully perused the section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act which is extracted below for better appreciation.
" 25F- Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-
(a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has 22 C.C.No.27930/2007 expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice,
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay (for every completed year of continuous service) or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate government (or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate government by notification in the Official Gazette)".
23. I have carefully perused the above 25 F Industrial Disputes Act which clearly discloses that, the in case of retrenchment of workmen, one month's notice should be given or in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of notice shall be paid and workman is only entitled for compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of service. Therefore section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act is very clear that, the workmen are entitled for wages for one month in lieu of one month notice and they are entitled for 23 C.C.No.27930/2007 compensation equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of service.
24. I have also carefully perused section 25 FFF which provides for compensation to workmen in case of closure. The Hon'ble Labour court has passed an award directing the accused management to pay retrenchment compensation as well as closure compensation.
Section 25 FFF of Industrial Disputes Act is extracted below for better appreciation. "25 FFF Compensation to workmen in case of closing down of undertakings (1) Where an undertaking is closed down for any reason whatsoever, every workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before such closure shall, subject to the provisions of sub- section (2), be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of section 25F, as if the workman had been retrenched".
24C.C.No.27930/2007 The above section 25 FFF clearly discloses that, closure compensation is also similar to the compensation provided for retrenchment under section 25 F. Therefore section 25F and section 25 FFF of Industrial Disputes Acts clearly establishes that, the workman are entitled only retrenchment compensation under section 25F and closure compensation under section 25 FFF as per the order of Hon'ble Labour Court and therefore the above cited decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is applicable to the case on hand. Therefore the workman are not at all entitled for wages from the date of retrenchment till passing of the judgment by this court. The workmen are entitled only the statutory compensation provided under section 25F and 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act.
25. The counsel for the complainant argues that, the section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act provides for penalty for breach of award and therefore the accused company is liable for 6 months imprisonment and they are liable to pay the fine for the breach of the award passed by the Hon'ble Labour court and prays this court to impose 25 C.C.No.27930/2007 reasonable fine on the accused company for having not paid the retrenchment compensation and closure compensation as per the Industrial Disputes Act in spite of the retrenchment taken place in the year 1989 itself and therefore prays for imposing reasonable penalties and severe punishment on the accused for not implementing the award passed by the Labour court.
26. I have carefully perused the records which clearly proves that, on 01.09.1989 itself the 25 workmen were retrenched by the accused management and records further clearly proves that, the accused management has not paid either the retrenchment compensation or the closure compensation and the records clearly proves that, the complainant union raised the dispute before the conciliation and the same was referred to the Labour court under the Industrial Disputes Act and the case Ref. No.2/1991 was registered before the Labour Court and the Hon'ble Labour Court by its award dated 23.04.2004 passed an award directing the accused management to pay the retrenchment compensation as well as closure compensation and 26 C.C.No.27930/2007 in spite of the award passed by the Labour court and in spite of the representation made by the complainant union, the accused management has not bothered to comply the award passed by the Labour court and therefore the records clearly proves that, the complainant union obtained the permission of the Labour court to prosecute the accused management and filed this private complaint for the offence punishable under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act against the accused management.
27. Therefore the records clearly proves that, on 01.09.1989 itself the workmen are denied employment and they were retrenched and the accused management was supposed to pay the retrenchment compensation and closure compensation in the year 1989 itself. But failed to do the same in spite of the award passed by the Labour court. Therefore it is just and necessary to impose reasonable fine on the accused company for non complying the award passed by the Labour court. But as per sec 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the workmen are entitled for one month wages in 27 C.C.No.27930/2007 lieu of one month notice, they are entitled for compensation equivalent to average pay for every completed year of continues service and further the workmen are entitled for one month wages in lieu of 30 days notice for the closure compensation and they are also entitled for compensation equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed years of continuous service as closure compensation similar to retrenchment compensation and therefore the 25 workmen are entitled for the following compensation under section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act and closure compensation as per the section 25 FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act. Sl. Emplo Joini Date of No. Last 1 Retrench 1 Closure Total No. yees ng Refusal/ of Drawn month ment month Compensati Compensation com Name Date Retrenchment plet salary wages Compens wages on 15 days (in Rs.) ed per in lieu ation 15 in lieu average for yea month of days of every rs month notice average notice completed of (in as per for every as per year of serv ice Rs.) Sec. complete Sec. continuous 25(F) d year of 25(FFF service
(a) continuo ) r/w as per (in us sec.25 F Sec.25(FFF Rs.) service (a) r/w sec.25 F as per (in Rs.) (b) Sec.25(F) (in Rs.)
(b) (in Rs.)
1. Ram 1986 01.09.1989 3 650 650 (650/2x 650 (650/2x3) 3250/-
anjan 3) = = 975 appa 975 2. Nara 1987 01.09.1989 2 600 600 (600/2x 600 (600/2x2) 2400/- simh 2) = = 600 aiah 600 28 C.C.No.27930/2007 3. Shya 1988 01.09.1989 1 600 600 (600/2x 600 (600/2x1) 1800/- mann 1) = = 300 a 300 4. Sala 1987 01.09.1989 2 600 600 (600/2x 600 (600/2x2) 2400/- m 2) = = 600 Pash 600 a 5. Kum 1988 01.09.1989 1 600 600 (600/2x 600 (600/2x1) 1800/- ar 1) = = 300 300 6. Parth 1988 01.09.1989 1 450 450 (450/2x 450 (450/2x1) 1350/- iba 1) = = 225 225 7. Anth 1988 01.09.1989 1 600 600 (600/2x 600 (600/2x1) 1800/- ony 1) = = 300 300 8. Murt 1988 01.09.1989 1 550 550 (550/2x 550 (550/2x1) 1650/- hy 1) = = 275 275 9. Chan 1987 01.09.1989 2 800 800 (800/2x 800 (800/2x2) 3200/- drapa 2) = = 800 l 800 10. Krish 1986 01.09.1989 3 450 450 (450/2x 450 (450/2x3) 2250/- napp 3) = = 675 a 675 11. Franc 1988 01.09.1989 1 450 450 (450/2x 450 (450/2x1) 1350/- is 1) = = 225 225 12. Rahi 1986 01.09.1989 3 600 600 (600/2x 600 (600/2x3) 3000/- m 3) = = 900 Khan 900 13. Shya 1987 01.09.1989 2 800 800 (800/2x 800 (800/2x2) 3200/- mkut 2) = = 800 ty 800 14. Mani 1987 01.09.1989 2 600 600 (600/2x 600 (600/2x2) 2400/- 2) = = 600 600 15. Nara 1987 01.09.1989 2 730 730 (730/2x 730 (730/2x2) 2920/- yanas 2) = = 730 wam 730 y 29 C.C.No.27930/2007 16. Krish 1986 01.09.1989 3 600 600 (600/2x 600 (600/2x2) 3000/- napp 2) = = 900 a 900 17. Dhar 1986 01.09.1989 3 700 700 (700/2x 700 (700/2x3) 3500/- anra 3) = = 1050 m 1050 18. Palla 1987 01.09.1989 2 450 450 (450/2x 450 (450/2x2) 1800/- ppa 2) = = 450 450 19. Indra 1987 01.09.1989 2 700 700 (700/2x 700 (700/2x2) 2800/- singh 2) = = 700 700 20. Dine 1987 01.09.1989 2 600 600 (600/2x 600 (600/2x2) 2400/- sh 2) = = 600 600 21. Harir 1987 01.09.1989 2 800 800 (800/2x 800 (800/2x2) 3200/- am 2) = = 800 800 22. Naga 1987 01.09.1989 2 650 650 (650/2x 650 (650/2x2) 2600/- raj 2) = = 650 650 23. Muni 1986 01.09.1989 3 600 600 (600/2x 600 (600/2x3) 3000/- krish 3) = = 900 na 900 24. Moul 1987 01.09.1989 2 1600 1600 (1600/2 1600 (1600/2x 6400/- a x2) = 2) = 1600 1600 25. Sures 1984 01.09.1989 5 1250 1250 (1250/2 1250 (1250/2x 8750/- h x5) = 5) = 3125 3125 Gran Rs.72,220/- d Total
The above calculation makes it clear that, all the 25 workmen are entitled for both retrenchment compensation and closure compensation.
30C.C.No.27930/2007
28. The accused no.1 to 3 who are the directors of the company have failed to show that, they are not concerned with the management of the company and they have failed to show that, offence committed without their knowledge. Therefore the accused company and the accused no.1 to 3 are liable for the breach of the terms of the award under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. This court has already discussed above that as per Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act this court has power to imposes fine and this court has already held that, there has been more than 36 years of delay from the date of retrenchment in paying the retrenchment compensation and closure compensation to the workmen and further the accused management was supposed to pay the compensation in the year 1989 itself and delayed it nearly 36 years and therefore considering the 36 years of delay in paying the compensation by the accused management, the accused management is liable to be imposed reasonable fine amount for non payment of the retrenchment and closure compensation as per the award passed by the Labour court. The reasonable fine amount and compensation can be determined 31 C.C.No.27930/2007 at the time of hearing on the application of the probation of offenders Act and hearing on the sentence. Therefore the complainant union has proved beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused company and its directors accused no.1 to 3 have not complied the award passed by the Hon'ble Labour court produced at Ex.P1 and thereby committed offence punishable under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
29. It is relevant to mention that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bhagwan Jaganath Markand v/s State of Maharashtra reported in 2016 (1) SCC 537 has clearly held that;
"the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty and prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and further held that, the degree of proof need not reach certainty but must carry a high degree of probability."32
C.C.No.27930/2007 I have carefully perused the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and also the materials on record, the evidence produced by prosecution has carried a high degree of probability with regard to the alleged offence committed by the accused. Therefore, complainant has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, with the above observations, I hold point No.1 in the Affirmative.
30. Point No.2: For the reasons stated and discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following ;
ORDER The accused company and accused no.1 to 3 are CONVICTED U/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/s 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For Hearing whether to apply probation of offenders Act or to pass sentence.
VI ACJM 33 C.C.No.27930/2007 ORDER ON SENTENCE Counsel for accused argues that, the accused is a company and accused no.1 to 3 are the directors of the company and they are first time offenders and they have family to take care of and the probation of offenders Act can be extended and they may be released by admonition under the probation of offenders Act.
Counsel for the complainant on the other hand argues that, the accused company and its directors have not at all implemented the award in spite of several years have been lapsed and therefore the accused company and the directors liable for breach of terms of award and they are liable to implement the award and if benefits of probation of offenders Act is given, the accused company will not implement the award and therefore prays for punishment provided under the law.
34C.C.No.27930/2007 I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and counsel for the accusd. This court has already discussed in the Judgment that as per Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act this court has power to imposes fine and this court has already held that, there has been more than 36 years of delay from the date of retrenchment in paying the retrenchment compensation and closure compensation to the workmen and further the accused management was supposed to pay the compensation in the year 1989 itself and delayed it nearly 36 years and therefore considering the 36 years of delay in paying the compensation by the accused management, the accused management is liable to be imposed reasonable fine amount for non payment of the retrenchment and closure compensation as per the award passed by the Labour court and out of the fine amount this court has power to award compensation to the workmen who have been denied the compensation 35 C.C.No.27930/2007 by the accused by breaching the award passed by the Labour Court.
The accused company and its
directors have not paid the
retrenchment and closure
compensation for several years and the terms of award is not implemented by the accused company and if benefit is given under the probation of offenders Act, the very purpose of filing this case would be defeated and if the accused company and its directors are not punished, they would not implement the award of the labour court, therefore the counsel for accused has failed to make out grounds to extend the benefits provided under the probation of offenders Act.
On the other hand the complainant has made out grounds that, the accused company and its directors are liable to be punished for non implementation of the award of the labour court, under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence I pass the following 36 C.C.No.27930/2007 ORDER The accused no.1 to 3 are sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and the accused company and accused no.1 to 3 are directed to pay fine of Rs.1,85,000/- each, (Rs. One Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Only totally Rs.7,40,000/- (Rs. Seven Lakh Forty Thousand Only) in default of payment of fine, the accused no.1 to 3 shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month for the offence punishable 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.32,500/-, (Rs. Thirty Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Ramanjanappa.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.24,000/-, (Rs. Twenty Four Thousand Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Narasimhaiah.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.18,000/-, (Rs. Eighteen Thousand Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Shyamanna.
37C.C.No.27930/2007 Out of the fine amount, Rs.24,000/-, (Rs. Twenty Four Thousand Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Salam Pasha.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.18,000/-, (Rs. Eighteen Thousand Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Kumar.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.13,500/-, (Rs. Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Parthiban.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.18,000/-, (Rs. Eighteen Thousand Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Anthony.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.16,500/-, (Rs. Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Murthy.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.32,000/-, (Rs. Thirty Two Thousand Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Chandrapal.
38C.C.No.27930/2007 Out of the fine amount, Rs.22,500/-, (Rs. Twenty Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Krishnappa.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.13,500/-, (Rs. Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Francis.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.30,000/-, (Rs. Thirty Thousand Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Rahim Khan.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.32,000/-, (Rs. Thirty Two Thousand Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Shyamkutty.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.24,000/-, (Rs. Twenty Four Thousand Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Mani.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.29,200/-, (Rs. Twenty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Narayanaswamy.
39C.C.No.27930/2007 Out of the fine amount, Rs.30,000/-, (Rs. Thirty Thousand Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Krishnappa.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.35,000/-, (Rs. Thirty Five Thousand Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Dharanram.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.18,000/-, (Rs. Eighteen Thousand Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Pallappa.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.28,000/-, (Rs. Twenty Eight Thousand Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Indrasingh.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.24,000/-, (Rs. Twenty Four Thousand Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Dinesh.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.32,000/-, (Rs. Thirty Two Thousand Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Hariram.
40C.C.No.27930/2007 Out of the fine amount, Rs.26,000/-, (Rs. Twenty Six Thousand Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Nagaraj.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.30,000/-, (Rs. Thirty Thousand Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Munikrishna.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.64,000/-, (Rs. Sixty Four Thousand Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Moula.
Out of the fine amount, Rs.87,500/-, (Rs. Eighty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only) shall be paid as compensation to the workman Suresh.
Supply a free copy of the Judgment to the accused.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 05 th day of December, 2025).
(MANJUNATH D.R.) VI Addl. CJM., Bengaluru City.
41C.C.No.27930/2007 ANNEXURE
1. The witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
1. P.W.1. : B. Ramanjanappa
2. The List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:-
1. Ex.P1. : Certified copy of the award
2. Ex.P2 : Representation
3. Ex.P3 : Certified copy of the permission order
4. Ex.P4 to 8. : Documents relating to the functioning of the accused company
5. Ex.P9 : Section 65B certificate
3. The witnesses examined on behalf of accused :-
1. D.W.1. : Sanjay Garg
4. The List of documents marked on behalf of accused:-
1. Ex.D.1. : Copy of the order of Board for Industrial and Financial reconstruction 42 C.C.No.27930/2007
5. The list of material objects marked on behalf of prosecution.
- Nil-
Digitally signed by MANJUNATH MANJUNATH DR DR Date: 2025.12.10 15:45:31 +0530 (MANJUNATH D.R.)
VI Addl. CJM., Bengaluru City.