JUDGMENT
Tipnis, J.
1. This petition filed by M/s. Saudi Arabian Airlines challenges the legality and correctness of the order dated 2nd November, 1992 passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court at Bombay directing the petitioners to maintain status-quo until further orders in Complaint (ULP) No. 379 of 1992 and continuation of the said order by orders dated 24th November, 1992 and 10th December, 1992. However, it is not necessary to deal with this aspect of the matter in as much the main complaint being complaint (ULP) No. 389 of 1992 is admittedly disposed of and as such interim orders are of no consequence as of today.
2. The petition also impugned the legality and correctness of the order of issuance of summons or process to the petitioners by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Bombay in Miscellaneous Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 139 of 1992 filed by the employee by name Salim Gandhi.
3. Shri Cama, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the orders of issuance of process are without any application of mind. The complaint itself does not disclose any offence under the Act, and the learned Judge has mechanically issued the process. Shri Ganguli on the other hand contended that it is the discretionary order not calling for any interference in writ jurisdiction of this Court.
4. It requires to be stated that the complainant has asserted in the complaint that the complainant has filed the Complaint (ULP) No. 379 of 1992 and after hearing the complainant the Court passed the order directing the respondents Company i.e., M/s. Saudi Arabian Airlines and the Manager thereof to maintain status quo. That order on his own showing was passed on 2nd November 1992. The complaint alleges that the company and the manager have flouted the order of status quo passed on 2nd November, 1992 and further orders continuing the same, by not paying the complainant his full wages and by terminating the services of the complainant. Paragraph 6 of the complaint specifically mentions that the letter dated 30th October, 1992 dispatched by the company 31st October, 1992 is annexed at Exhibit C. Paragraph 7 of the said complaint mentions that the respondents have committed offence on 31st October 1992/1st November 1992 and they are continuing to flout the order of the Court.
5. Section 39 of the MRTU and ULP Act clearly states that no Labour Court shall take cognizance of any offence except on a complaint of facts constituting such an offence made by the person affected thereby. Thus the complaint must disclose facts constituting such an offence. The offence complained of is defiance of the interim orders of status quo. As stated earlier the complaint itself discloses that the letter of termination dated 30th October, 1992 was dispatched on 31st October 1992 and when the order of status quo was passed, for the first time on 2nd November, 1992, we are at loss understand how any offence is made out at all. Thus the very reading of the complaint itself does not disclose any facts constituting the offence.
6. It is clear that the provisions of sections 39 and 40 of the MRTU and PULP Act, enjoin the Labour Judge with a duty to apply mind and find out whether the facts constituting such offence are disclosed in the complaint. As a matter of fact to these proceedings the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so far as may be, are applicable and the learned Judge should have been more careful before issuing the process, in as much as the complaint itself does not disclose any offence, the learned Judge could not have issued any process upon such a complaint. The order of issuance of process or summons is thus absolutely illegal and unwarranted and deserves to be quashed.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, the order of issuance of summons passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 7th Labour Court, Bombay on 23rd December, 1992 in Miscellaneous Criminal Complaint No. 139 of 1992 is hereby quashed and set aside and consequently the said complaint is dismissed.
8. The aforesaid order of issuance of process was challenged by filing revision and the learned President of the Industrial Court at Bombay and by his order dated 30th August, 1993 dismissed the revision and confirmed the order of issuance of process.
9. In view of our finding that the order of issuance of process is illegal, aforesaid order passed by the learned President, Industrial Court, Bombay dated 30th August, 1993 in Revision Application (ULP) No. 17 of 1993 also must fail and the said order is also hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
