[ 2025:JHHC:33836 ] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 1408 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1408 of 2023 Om Prakash, son of Kishori Lal, aged about 65 years, resident of Flat no. 2A, 7 Green Park, P.O. & P.S.- GangulyBagan, Garia, Dist.- Sourth 24 Parganas, West Bengal - 700084 ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Koderma, P.O. & P.S. and Dist.- Koderma ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Jha , Adv. For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. PP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the order dated 11.04.2016 in the Complaint Case no. 994 of 2016 whereby and whereunder learned CJM, Dhanbad has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the order dated 03.12.2022 passed by learned CJM, Dhanbad in the said Complaint Case no. 994 of 2016 whereby non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the accused persons of the case, being the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not a penal provision of law rather Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act is the penal provision of law, hence, learned CJM, has committed a grave illegality by taking cognizance of a claimed offence; which in fact is not an offence. It is next submitted that this is not a fit case for remand because the offence alleged is non-implementing of the award [ 2025:JHHC:33836 ] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 1408 of 2023 dated 15.04.2014 in Reference no. 28 of 2011 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad but drawing attention of the court to Annexure 4, which is the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (L) no. 4967 of 2014 dated 28.11.2022, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said award has been quashed and set aside and the matter has been remitted back to the Tribunal concerned and as yet, no fresh order has been passed by the concerned Tribunal. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 4. Learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the opp. Party no. 2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it will be appropriate to refer Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which reads as under :- 32.Offence by companies, etc.—Where a person committing an offence under this Act is a company, or other body corporate, or an association of persons (whether incorporated or not), every director, manager, secretary, agent or other officer or person concerned with the management thereof shall, unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or consent, be deemed to be guilty of such offence. 6. The plain reading of the Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act goes to show that the same is not a penal provision of law nor the same reveals any offence. Learned CJM, Dhanbad was expected to take cognizance of any offence which is provided for in any penal provision of law. Since Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act is not a penal provision of law, hence, this court has no hesitation in holding that continuation of order dated 11.04.2016 is not sustainable in law, hence, the same is quashed and set aside against the petitioner. [ 2025:JHHC:33836 ] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 1408 of 2023 7. The next question arises, is whether the case is to be remitted back to the CJM, Dhanbad for passing a fresh order and to consider whether the offence punishable under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act is made out. But keeping in view the undisputed fact, that the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner did not implement the award dated 15.04.2014 passed in Reference Case no. 28 of 2011 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal no. 1, Dhanbad, and the said award is no more in force, having been quashed and set aside vide the order dated 28.11.2022 in W.P. (L) no. 4967 of 2014, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to remit the matter back to the CJM, Dhanbad to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 8. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 30th October, 2025 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 24/11/25