Wrongful withholding of company accommodation by a former employee can attract prosecution under company law despite a pending termination challenge.

Section 630 of the Companies Act applies to wrongful withholding of company property by a former employee who obtained possession during service and continues to retain it after employment ends. The text states that continued occupation of company accommodation after termination remains wrongful where the termination is still operative, even if the employee has challenged the termination or the dispute has been referred to labour adjudication. It also records that wrongful withholding is treated as a continuing act and that a narrow reading of "officer or employee" is unwarranted. Criminal prosecution on that basis is therefore maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a former employee, whose services have been terminated but who continues to occupy company accommodation, can be prosecuted under section 630 of the Companies Act, and whether pendency of a challenge to termination or reference of the dispute to labour adjudication bars such prosecution.

Analysis: Section 630 of the Companies Act penalises wrongful withholding of company property by an officer or employee. The provision applies not only to existing employees but also to past employees where possession was lawfully obtained during service and is thereafter wrongfully retained after cessation of employment. The fact that the termination order is under challenge, or that the dispute has been referred to labour court, does not by itself negate the wrongful character of continued occupation so long as the termination remains operative. The cited Supreme Court authorities recognise that wrongful withholding of company property is a continuing act and that a restrictive reading of the words "officer or employee" is unwarranted.

Conclusion: A former employee who remains in occupation of company accommodation after termination of service falls within section 630 of the Companies Act, and criminal proceedings on that basis are not without jurisdiction.

---