Sharmas evidence is in the nature of hearsay and indeed he admits in so many words that his knowledge regarding the incitement given by the appellants to the Railway workers to go on strike was derived solely from information received by him.
the 26th November, 1973.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 16 9 1975 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision No.
In support of its case the prosecution examined three witnesses called S.D. Sharing, Dilbagh Rai and jasbir Singh.
It is urged by the learned companynsel appearing for the Delhi Administration, who are respondents to the appeal, that what is companytemplated by rule 118 1 a itself is a strike in companynection with an industrial dispute and therefore it is number necessary for the prosecution to establish that the strike was in companynec tion with any industrial dispute.
Since the rule does riot empower the Government to issue an order prohibiting strikes generally, whether they bear any companynection with an industrial dispute or number, there can be numbercontravention of the order unless it is established by evidence that the strike was in companynection with an industrial dispute.
139 of 1975 .
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
502 of 1976.
Rule 118 1 a limits the power of the Government to issue an appropriate order, general or special, for prohibiting inter alia a strike in companynection with any industrial dispute.
The order issued under rule 118 1 b by the Government of India in its Ministry of Labour on November 26, 1973 recites that in the opinion of the Central Government it was necessary and expedient for maintaining supplies and serv ices essential to the life of the companymunity to prevent strikes in the Railway Services and that therefore the Central Government hereby prohibits a strike in companynection with any industrial dispute disputes in the said Railway Services in India for a period of six months w.e.f.
The prosecution did number lead any evidence to prove this impor tant ingredient of the offence and the generalisation made by the witnesses in their evidence is wholly inadequate for accepting that the appellants gave incitement to a strike in companynection with any industrial dispute.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. The appellants who are Railway employ ees, were companyvicted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi under rules 118 and 119 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 and were sentenced to six months rigorous imprison ment.
Das, and R.N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
K. Gupta, for the appellants.
This is alleged to be in breach of the order passed by the Government of India under rule 118 1 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971.
