This brings us to the third question as to the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate if he was satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out to go to trial despite the final report submitted by the police. In any case, in the absence of satisfactory materials it would be difficult to deal with this plea on the merits. Indeed it does not appear that this plea was urged as a separate plea against the order of reinstatement before the appellate tribunal. (f) Clause (d) makes it clear that a housing project includes shops and commercial establishments also.

239(b) which permits persons accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment to be charged and tried together. 233 and 239 of the Code. Collins (1) is rather instructive and it (1) VII H. However, the Legislature itself felt that this much commercial space would not meet the requirements of the residents. " A similar interpretation was put on the expression industrial establishment " by the Madras High Court in S. Under the terms of these provisions any number of persons accused of commuting a single offence could be tried together with any number of persons who had abetted that offence.

One of the illustrations given by Byles J. (b) did not permit the trial of persons accused of several offences and persons accused of abetment of those offences in one trial and to try a person accused of three offences along with a person accused of abetment of those offences would be contrary to the provisions of cl. The Workmen (1), however much the court may sympathise with the employer's difficulty caused by the fact that after the wrongful dismissals in question he had engaged fresh hands, the court cannot " overlook the claims of the employees who, on the findings of the tribunals below, had been wrongly dismissed.

239(b) make it quite clear that persons who had committed a single offence and those who abetted it only could be tried together. 234 were combined the result would be to create another exception to be added to the exceptions stated in s. In such an event, if the Magistrate decided to proceed against the persons accused, he would have to proceed on the basis of the police report itself and either inquire into the matter or commit it to the Court of Session if the same was found to be triable by the Sessions Court.

As has been held by this Court in the National Transport and General Co. 245 of 1955, arising out of the Award dated July 14, 1955, of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, in Reference (I. 239 of the Code they could not be tried together. If the provisions of s. The mere fact that the Bank may have employed some other persons in the meanwhile would not necessarily defeat such a claim for reinstatement. 1 " with costs quantified at Rs.

No Court had any authority to create a' new exception to s. But from the day the said provision was inserted, they wanted to limit the built up area of shops and establishments to 5% of the aggregate built up area or 2000 sq. Appeal by special leave from the decision dated June 29, 1955, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Bombay, in Appeal (Bombay) No. The other line of argument in support of the objection that the appellant and Henderson could not be tried together was based on the provisions of ss.

239 of the Code it was not permissible to take into consideration the provisions of s. Since the appellant is said to have committed three offences of cheating and Henderson three offences of abetment thereof, the provisions of s. Besides, if the Bank has failed to establish its specific case against any of the 136 employees, there is no reason why the normal rule should not prevail and the employees should not get the relief of reinstatement. , to a date prior to the filing of the suit by the creditor Buty against the family on March 2, 1898, to meet the possible argument that the claim could be traced back to that of Buty and therefore the alleged partition could not affect the claim of Daga.

Further, it became necessary to put back the date of the alleged division in status to 1898, i. Reliance was placed in support of this contention on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Pravat Kumar 181 v. 312 of 1956- Decided by this Court on January 22, 1957. Parker (1), where the expression which came up for construction before the Court was " employed in an industrial establishment " and it was observed that:- " Employed in an industrial establishment " must mean employed in some particular place, that place being the place used for manufacture or an activity amounting to industry, as that term is used in the Act.

It was pointed out that under the provisions of s. 5 lakhs to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, within a period of six weeks from today. 233 its provisions had to be construed strictly. 234, 235, 236 and 239. " In the case of such wrongful (1)Civil Appeal No. It was: urged that in construing s. 44 the learned author illustrates the principle by giving as an example a carrier of goods entrusting them to another carrier for part of the journey.

Unless, therefore, the joinder of trial of the appellant and Henderson was permitted under s. 239 being an exception to s. The only provision by which a person accused of an offence and a person accused 104 of abetment of that offence can be tried together in a single trial is under s. 194,212, 11 82 visualises a situation which may be approximated to. In view of the afore discussion, we allow the appeals, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, and dismiss the writ petition filed by the Builder " respondent No.

233 of the Code for every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately except in the cases mentioned in ss.