TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (8) TMI 456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icial Magistrate, First Class, Telhara, challenges the order by which his application for discharge was rejected, and the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, by which he rejected his Criminal Revision to challenge the said order. 3. Respondent No. 2-Complainant has filed the proceedings under section 630 of the Companies Act against the applicant/accused in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1790/2002 before J.M.F.C., Telhara. It had sought the eviction of the accused/applicant inasmuch as he was not in the service of the complainant, as allotment of accommodation was a condition of service. During the course of the proceedings, the applicant/accused moved an application for discharge on the ground that he has filed Misc. UL....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel Mr. N. R. Saboo, for the applicant, has contended that in view of the provisions of section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which read thus- "33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings.-(1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation Officer or a Board or of any proceeding before [an arbitrator or] a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall,- (a )in regard to any matter connected with dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceedings; or (b)fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt/accused by respondent No. 2 after his services were terminated on 1-8-2001 to vacate the said quarter and thereafter he was prosecuted. She has contended that the orders of the learned trial Judge as well as the Revisional Court are correct. She has relied on the observations of Allahabad High Court in R. Antony v. Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. 1996(1) CLR 1011 to contend that the applicant can continue to be workman only for the purposes of Industrial Disputes Act and that section 28 does not mention that such a person would be workman for the proceedings under the Companies Act also. It is further contended by her that section 630 of the Companies Act does confer the right on the Company for the proceeding to get the employee evicted from t....