# I959 Ranjit Singh v. Tlic State of Punjab

- **Citation:** [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 734
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1959
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1957
- **Bench:** Jafer Imam, J. L. Kapur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/i959-ranjit-singh-v-tlic-state-of-punjab-1743
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Industrial Dispute-Conciliation proceedings-Pendency ofWhether 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 indicated 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 conBomb2y
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 conciliation 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 Congress, 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 respondent.
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 Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, and thus convicting accused 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 Officer wrote to the appelBombay
!ant No. I and enclosed the demands of the Union
Kapur].
which were dated August 9, 1951. On December 31,
1951, the appellant No. l was asked to appear before
the Conciliation Officer on January 9, 1952, and after
getting one adjournment the appellant No. I 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
Offi.cer 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 Pereira, a bus conductor
1tnd proceedings

## Text

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 Allahabad 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, Criminal Procedure Code, the former of which is expressly
mentioned in sub-section 2 of s. 476, Criminal Procedure 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 Magistrate can assume jurisdiction to issue process against
the person complained against.
In our opinion the appellant has been rightly convicted 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 ofWhether 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 indicated 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 conBomb2y
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 conciliation 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 Congress, 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 respondent.
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 Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, and thus convicting accused 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 Officer wrote to the appelBombay
!ant No. I and enclosed the demands of the Union
Kapur].
which were dated August 9, 1951. On December 31,
1951, the appellant No. l was asked to appear before
the Conciliation Officer on January 9, 1952, and after
getting one adjournment the appellant No. I 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
Offi.cer 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 Pereira, a bus conductor
1tnd proceedings were taken on a com plaint by Assistant Commissioner of Labour under s. 33 read with
s. 31 of the Act against 5 accused persons the two
appellants and the partners of appellant No. I. 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
th;rn 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.
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 provisiun
(2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
737
of s. 33 of the Act an offence punishable with
x959
imprisonment for a period which may extend to six
h
. M
1
months or with fine or with both. Section 33(1) pro- g:,~= ;~s ;;,:ice
vides:
& Another
S. 33(1) "During the pendency of any conciliation
v.
proceedings before a conciliation officer or a Board or
The State of
of any proceeding before a Labour Court or TribuBombay
nal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial
dispute, no employer shall:-
(a) in regard to any matter connected with the
dispute, alter to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable
to them immediately before the commencement of
such proceedings; or
(b} for any misconduct connected with the dispute,
discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workmen concerned in such dispute,
save with the express permission in writing of the
authority before which the proceeding is pending".
Therefore the question reduces itself to the meaning of
the words " pendency of any conciliation proceedings
before a conciliation officer".
,
The argument raised on behalf of the appellant is
that the object of conciliation is to get a settlement
made with expedition and therefore under s. 12 the
_Conciliation Officer was bound to make his report
within 14 days of the commencement of the conciliation proceedings or within such shorter period fixed
by the appropriate Government. From this it was
submitted that as 14 days had expired before March
18, 1952, the dismissal could not be said to be one
within the words " pendency of conciliation proceedings". The Act provides for commencement and
conclusion of conciliation proceedings under s. 20 but
the first sub-section of s. 20 dea}s with what are called
utility services and sub-s. 2 of that section provides as
to when the conciliation proceedings conclude. That
sub-section is as follows :-
S. 20(1) " ..................................................... .
(2) A conciliation proceeding shall be deemed to
have concluded93
I<apur ].
738
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp.
'959
(a) where a settlement is arrived at, when a
h .
1 memorandum of the settlement is signed by the parAnd eri Maro
•
h d"
Ku,/a Bus Smice ties to t e ISpute;
& Anoth"
(b) where no settlement is arrived at, when the
v.
report of the conciliation officer is received by the
The State of
appropriate Government or when the report of the
Bombay
Board is published under s. 17, as the case may be; or
Kapu. J.
(c) when a reference is made to a Court, Labour
Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal under section 10
during the pendency of conciliation proceedings".
The provisions of sub-section 2 apply to all conciliation proceedings whether in regard to utility services
or otherwise. All conciliation proceedings under this
sub-section shall be deemed to have concluded in the
case where no settlement is reached, when the report
of the Conciliation Officer is received by the appropriate Government. The conciliation proceedings
therefore do not end when the report under s. 12(6) is
made by the Conciliation Officer but when that report
is received by the appropriate Government. It was
contended that the conciliation proceedings should be
held to terminate when the Conciliation Officer is
required under s. 12(6) of the Act to submit his report
but the provisions of the Act above quoted do not
support this contention as the termination of the conciliation proceedings is deemed to take place when the
report is received by the appropriate Government.
This is how s. 20(2)(b) was interpreted in Workers of
the Industry Colliery,. Dhanbad v. Management of the
Industry Colliery (1).
It was next contended that on this interpretation
the conciliation proceedings could be prolonged much
beyond what was contemplated by the Act and the
termination would depend upon how soon a report is
received by the appropriate Government. It is true
that s. 12(6) of the Act contemplates the submission
of the report by the Conciliation Officer within 14 days
but that does not affect the pendency of the conciliation proceedings and if for some reason the Conciliation
Officer delays the submission of his report his action
(1) [1953) S.C.R. 428.
(2) S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
739
may be reprehensible but that will not affect the
'959
interpretation to be put on s. 20(2)(b) of the Act.
A dh
. M . 1
Section 12 lays down the duties of the Conciliation Kur7a ;~s ;:,:ice
officer. He is required to bring about settlement
& Another
between the parties and must begin his investigation
v.
without delay and if no settlement is arrived at he is to
The •State of
submit his report to the appropriate Government. No
Bombay
doubt s. 12 contemplates that the report should be
Kapur 1.
made and the proceedings closed within a fortnight and
if proceedings are not closed but are carried on, as they
were in the present case, or if the Conciliation Officer
does not make his report within 14 days he may be
guilty of a breach of duty but in law the proceedings
do not automatically come to an end after 14 days but
only terminate as provided in s. 20(2)(b) of the Act.
Colliery M azdoor Congress, Asansol v. New Beerbhoom
Coal Co. Ltd (1).
As the conciliation proceedings were
pending at the time when Louis Pereira was dismissed
the appellants were rightly convicted under s. 31(1)
read with s. 33 of the Act.
The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
THE STATE OF AJMER (now RAJASTHAN)
v.
SHIVJI LAL
(B. P. SINHA, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and
K. N. WANCHOO JJ.)
Public Servant-Teacher. in railway school-Whether public
servant-Taking of money promising to procure a job-Whether
illegal gratification-Criminal misconduct in the discharge of dutyl ndian Penal Code (Act 45 of I86o), ss. 2I, cl. 9, I6I-Prevention
of Corruption Act, I947 (2 of Ig47), ss. 4(I), S(I)(d), (2).
The respondent who was a teacher in a railway school was
prosecuted under s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and s. 5(2) read
withs. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The
(1) [1952] L.A.C. 219, 222.
1959
April n.