S.P. Talukdar, J.@mdashAn award under the Industrial Disputes Act was made as far back as in 1994. It was against a company, M/s Aspiring
Engineers and Exporters Pvt. Ltd. About a decade and half have passed since passing of the said award and without absolutely no progress so far.
It has been althrough a wild goose chase. The controversy of course was, for reasons or without, allowed to change the complexion from time to
time. In the process, the helpless workers wasted their valuable time and waited in agony.
2. The present application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against an order dated 11th July, 2002 passed by the learned
City Sessions Court, Calcutta, in Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2001. By the said order, the learned Court of Revision set aside the order of the
learned Magistrate being the order dated 19th July, 2000 passed in connection with Misc. Case No. 44 of 1998. All this was in connection with a
proceeding u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 deals with ""recovery of money due from an employer"". By the amendment of Sub-section (1)
of Section 33C of the said Act, the words ""to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land
revenue"", the words ""to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall proceed to realize the money
as if it were a fine imposed by such Magistrate"" were substituted. That is how the matter reached the learned Court of Magistrate.
4. After hearing Mr. Mallick appearing as Learned Counsel for the petitioner/State of West Bengal, Mr. Roy, Learned Counsel, appearing on
behalf of the opposite party No. 3 and representing the workers of the said company as well as Mr. Bhattacharjee, Learned Counsel, appearing
for opposite party No. 2 and on perusal of the relevant materials, it appears that such an award for an amount of Rs. 4 (four) lakhs and odd was
placed before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta for execution. Thereafter, another round of litigation was started. The present
opposite party No. 2 was sought to be impleaded/added in connection with the said execution proceeding. This was on the ground that such
opposite party No. 2 at the relevant time was Managing Director of the company and as such, was directly responsible for the day-today
functioning of the company.
5. To this, the opposite party No. 2 pleaded before the learned Court of Magistrate that he tendered resignation before such controversy cropped
up and before such an award was made. Opposite party No. 2 taking that plea wanted to wash his hands of. The present petitioner/State of West
Bengal as well as opposite party No. 3 being naturally anxious about the aforesaid stand of opposite party No. 2 sought to establish before the
learned Court that the resignation even if tendered was not accepted nor any Form 32 as per the Companyies Act could be placed before the
learned Court. In fact, Mr. Roy has gone a step further by producing a copy of the written statement filed by the opposite party No. 2 before the
learned Tribunal whereby he sought to present the company in 1994. Referring to the same, Mr. Roy has categorically contended that such
opposite party No. 2 has literally practised fraud upon the Court and as such, submitted that proceeding u/s 340 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is required to be initiated against such opposite party No. 2.
6. Mr. Bhattacharjee representing such opposite party No. 2 submits that it is of little consequence that his resignation is still pending for
acceptance or not. It is enough that he tendered his resignation in 1994. This, however, does not explain as to what prompted him to represent the
company and file a statement on its behalf in July, 1994.
7. This issue is naturally left open and it does not certainly by any means take away the right of the present opposite party No. 3 to initiate a
complaint before the appropriate forum in that regard. It may, however, be mentioned that this Court is not called upon to adjudicate that aspect
within the scope and ambit of the present application.
8. The question arises as to how an award passed against a company can be properly and effectively executed. Since the award is against the
company itself, Section 33C of the ID. Act and amendment thereto, as referred to to earlier, make the situation quite simple. It is for the learned
Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to proceed for recovery of the awarded amount and if such recovery is not made possible, the learned
Court may very well proceed in the manner as is done for realisation of fine. Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure very well takes care
of the situation. It matters little whether the present opposite party No. 2 continues to represent the offender company or not. After all, Director
may come and go, the company exists and so its liability for payment of the awarded amount. It is not understood as to what prompted the present
petitioner or opposite party No. 3 to implead or add opposite party No. 2 in such an execution proceeding.
9. Having regard to the fact that there has been inordinate delay, which puts our administration of justice to shame, the anxiety of the opposite
party No. 3, can be well appreciated. But it is not desirable on the part of either of the present petitioner or the opposite party No. 3 to miss the
wood for the trees.
10. Question has been raised by Mr. Bhattacharjee as to whether the learned C.M.M. was justified in transferring the matter to the learned 16th
Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. According to him, the amending provision as referred to specifically mention about the Chief Judicial Magistrate
or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and there is little scope of any other Magistrate to do or act on their behalf so far the said amendment is
concerned.
11. Having regard to the fact that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate are placed in the categories of the Courts of
Magistrate u/s 6 of the Code, this Court is not inclined to give such a literal meaning and adopt a technical approach. Section 6 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure only speaks about three categories of Magistrates i.e. the Judicial Magistrate of the first class and Metropolitan Magistrate,
Executive Magistrate and the Judicial Magistrate of the second class.
12. The aforesaid Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits this Court to hold that though there is no mention of any other Magistrate
in such amended Sub-section (1) of Section 33C of the I.D. Act, there had been no technical error in making over the case to the learned 16th
Court of M.M. by learned C.M.M., Calcutta.
13. The fact remains that Industrial Disputes Act is a social legislation and while interpreting the same, the Court should not be hyper-technical and
it does not demand dotting of every ''i'' and cutting of every ''t''. But to avoid the possibility of any future controversy and in view of the order
which this Court now propose to pass, the further proceeding with the said award be shifted back to the learned Court of C.M.M.. Calcutta.
14. So far Section 33C of the I.D. Act is concerned, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that it contemplates any personal liability of the
Managing Director or any of the Directors of the company. The liability to satisfy the award for all practical as well as legal purposes continues to
remain with the company irrespective of who represent the same. There was absolutely no justification for impleading the present opposite party
No. 2 in connection with the said execution proceeding. This Court appreciates the stand taken by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate as well as
the concerned for effective execution of the award but this does not justify taking of a route, which is not permissible in law nor serve any fruitful
purpose.
15. After giving due regard to the order which was passed by the learned Court of Revision, it appears that initial misconception persists and the
learned Court of Revision also dealt with the matter entirely from a different angle and in a wrong perspective. In view of the approach taken by
this Court, any further discussion regarding the merits of the order passed by the learned Court of Revision as well as learned Court of Magistrate
does not seem to be necessary.
16. This Court certainly appreciates the anxiety as ventilated by Mr. Mallick or Mr. Roy on behalf of the opposite party No. 3. The reference to
the various judgments passed by the Apex Court either in specific cases or in response to Public Interest Litigation certainly continue to guide and
focus the miseries of the poor and helpless. It was said that law grinds the poor and rich men rule the law. The said proposition tends to be
applicable even in present life. But that does not necessarily justify any sort of means and while administering justice, the correct procedure is
required to be adopted. When the liability in respect of a certain matter rests exclusively with the Company, it will certainly not justify to chase
another person who at one point of time represented the company.
17. Considering all these aspects and in the best interest of justice, the present application is disposed of with the following observations:
The impugned order passed by the learned Court of Revision being the order dated 11.07.2002 as well as the order passed by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate being the order dated 19.07.2000 be set aside.
18. The execution proceeding under reference is hereby sent back to the learned Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. This is done in
exercise of this Court''s power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in order to secure the ends of justice as well as to prevent further
abuse of the process of law.
19. The learned C.M.M. on receipt of the relevant record will proceed to execute the award against the company. In case, the said amount cannot
be satisfied by the company, the learned Court will proceed in accordance with Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
20. It is expected that the entire execution proceeding should be so dealt with that it can be disposed of positively within a period of three months
from the date of communication of this order.
21. This disposes of C.R.R. No. 473 of 2003.
Let a xerox plain copy of this order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be handed over to the Learned Counsel for the parties
on usual undertaking.