Wrongful retention of company accommodation under Section 630 extends to leased premises and is not barred by pending labour dispute

Section 630 of the Companies Act was applied to accommodation provided by a company as part of service conditions, even where the company held only a leasehold interest rather than absolute ownership. The court also treated criminal prosecution for wrongful retention of premises as distinct from pending industrial dispute proceedings over dismissal, so the latter did not bar action for continued occupation after notice to vacate. A later petition under Section 482 CrPC could not be used to bypass an earlier failed revision absent exceptional grounds such as abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. On the evidence, the employer was a company and the prosecution and conviction were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether pendency of proceedings before the forum under the Industrial Disputes Act barred prosecution for wrongful retention of company accommodation under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956; (ii) whether premises taken on lease by the company and allotted to an employee fell within "property" for Section 630; (iii) whether a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable after dismissal of a revision in view of Section 397(3) of the Code and the related appellate provision in Section 376(d); and (iv) whether the employer was a company so as to attract Section 630.

Issue (i): Whether pendency of proceedings before the forum under the Industrial Disputes Act barred prosecution for wrongful retention of company accommodation under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: The criminal prosecution under Section 630 and the industrial dispute concerning dismissal were held to be distinct proceedings resting on different considerations. The criminal court was concerned only with whether the employee, after dismissal and notice to vacate, continued to retain company accommodation. The pendency of a challenge to dismissal did not confer any right to withhold possession of the premises.

Conclusion: The pendency of the industrial dispute did not bar the prosecution.

Issue (ii): Whether premises taken on lease by the company and allotted to an employee fell within "property" for Section 630.

Analysis: The term "property" was construed broadly in the context of the beneficial object of Section 630. The provision was meant to enable a company to recover accommodation provided as a condition of service once the employee ceased to be in service. The expression was not confined to absolute ownership; it also covered property in which the company held a lesser proprietary interest such as a leasehold right. On the evidence, the premises had been leased by the company and allotted to the employee as service accommodation.

Conclusion: The leased premises constituted property of the company for the purpose of Section 630.

Issue (iii): Whether a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable after dismissal of a revision in view of Section 397(3) of the Code and the related appellate provision in Section 376(d).

Analysis: The remedy of appeal or revision depended on the nature of the sentence, but the fact that a revision had already been pursued and failed could not be circumvented merely by labelling a subsequent proceeding as one under Section 482. The inherent power was available only in exceptional cases involving grave procedural defect, illegality, abuse of process, or miscarriage of justice. No such circumstances were shown on the record.

Conclusion: The petition under Section 482 was not maintainable on the facts and could not be used to overcome the statutory bar and the earlier revisional order.

Issue (iv): Whether the employer was a company so as to attract Section 630.

Analysis: The appointment and allotment orders, together with the evidence of the branch manager and the petitioner's admissions, established that the employer was a private limited company and that the accommodation had been provided in that capacity. No contrary proof was produced.

Conclusion: The employer was a company and Section 630 applied.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution and the conviction under Section 630 were upheld, and no ground was made out for interference in inherent jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 630 of the Companies Act applies to accommodation provided by a company as a condition of service even where the company holds only a leasehold or other lesser proprietary interest, and pending proceedings challenging dismissal do not bar prosecution for continued wrongful retention after termination.

---