TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds convictions under Companies Act, orders vacating company quarter. Terminated employee covered by law.</h1> The court dismissed the revision, upholding the convictions under Section 630 of the Companies Act against the revisionist. It affirmed the orders ... Penalty for wrongful with holding of property Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 630 of the Companies Act to terminated employees.2. Legality of the possession of company property by the revisionist after termination.3. Validity of the complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act during the pendency of an industrial dispute.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 630 of the Companies Act to Terminated Employees:The court examined whether Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, applies to employees whose services have been terminated. The court referenced multiple Supreme Court judgments to conclude that Section 630 indeed covers not only current employees but also past employees who wrongfully withhold company property post-termination. The court cited *Lalita Jalan v. Bombay Gas Co. Ltd.*, where it was held that Section 630 is not purely penal but aims to ensure that company property is not wrongfully withheld. The court also referenced *Baldev Krishna Sahi v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd.*, which emphasized a broad and liberal interpretation of Section 630 to include past employees. The court concluded that the revisionist, despite being a terminated employee, falls under the purview of Section 630.2. Legality of the Possession of Company Property by the Revisionist After Termination:The court addressed the revisionist's claim that his possession of the company quarter was not illegal due to the pendency of a case against his termination before the Labour Court. The court rejected this argument, stating that the termination order remains valid until set aside by a competent authority. The court referenced the case *R. Antony v. Renusagar Power Co. Ltd.*, which held that the pendency of an industrial dispute does not bar the company from filing a complaint under Section 630. The court also noted that the Labour Tribunal had vacated the status quo order that had temporarily restrained the company from evicting the revisionist, further weakening his claim of legal possession.3. Validity of the Complaint Under Section 630 of the Companies Act During the Pendency of an Industrial Dispute:The court examined whether the ongoing industrial dispute concerning the revisionist's termination barred the company from filing a complaint under Section 630. It concluded that the pendency of such a dispute does not preclude the company from seeking the return of its property. The court cited *P.V. George v. Jayems Engineering Co. P. Ltd.*, which held that proceedings challenging a dismissal are distinct from criminal proceedings under Section 630. The court affirmed that the company had the right to file the complaint irrespective of the ongoing industrial dispute.Conclusion:The court dismissed the revision, confirming the orders of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, which convicted the revisionist under Section 630 of the Companies Act and directed him to vacate the company quarter and pay damages. The court emphasized that the revisionist's arguments had been thoroughly considered and rejected by both lower courts, and no new points were raised that warranted a different outcome. The court ordered that the decision be certified to the lower court for implementation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
