The discretion to be exercised by the appropriate Government in filing a complaint or authorizing someone else to file a complaint under Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act is not the same discretion as the appropriate Government is required to exercise in granting or refusing sanction.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against the conviction of the petitioners under Section 26 or 27 or both of the Industrial Disputes Act and to the sentences passed thereunder. The prosecution case was briefly as follows--The petitioners Ramdass, Monmatha De, Mom Bose and Sheikh Karim are workers of the Oriental Gas Co. Ltd, whereas petitioner No. 5 Parimal Das is not a worker of the Company but is a labour leader. There was a labour Union comprising of some workers of the Oriental Gas Co. Ltd. with Parimal as Secretary which functioned till 1948 when Parimal was placed in detention. After the orders of detention of Parimal, a new Union was formed under a different leadership and this new Union was registered and recognised by the Company. In 1951 Parimal was released from detention and he reorganised his Union comprising some workers of the Oriental Gas Co. Ltd. But this Union which was freshly reorganised was not registered and the Company did not recognise the same. In order to put pressure on the Company the members of the Union led by Parimal organised a sudden strike on 13-6-51. On that day a worker of the Company named Sitaram, tried to enter the factory by the main gate, which was specially ear-marked for vehicular traffic. The Durwan posted at the gate offered resistance to Sitaram. There was an altercation between the worker and the durwan and thereafter a strike was organised. According to the prosecution case Parimal who was not a worker of the Oriental Gas Co. Ltd. did not have free access inside the factory. He stood outside the compound on a bridge near the factory compound and directed the strike from there. The other petitioners stationed themselves within the compound of the factory and they themselves struck work and began to incite others to strike. The Factory Manager remonstrated with the workers to resume work, but work was not resumed. The Deputy Labour Commissioner visited the Factory in the afternoon on receiving information and explained to the workers that the strike was illegal because the Oriental Gas Co. Ltd. was a public utility concern and no strike could be organised without 21 days' notice in view of Section 22, Industrial Disputes Act. The workers, however, did not resume work and the strike continued for about two months causing dislocation in the supply of Gas.

( 2 ) THE accused all pleaded not guilty and the defence was that a false case had been instituted in order to smash the Union which Parimal was trying to organise. It was further contended that there was no strike on 13-6-51 but there was a temporary cessation of work by the workers as a protest against the rough handling of the worker Sitaram by a durwan of the Company and that on the following day, (14-6-51) the workers were dismissed and it could not be said that they had continued in any illegal strike.

( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate, however, rejected the defence and found the accused petitioners guilty as follows: Ho found Parimal guilty under Section 27, Industrial Disputes Act for inciting the workers to strike. He found the remaining four petitioners guilty both under Section 26. Industrial Disputes Act for commencing and continuing an illegal strike and under Section 27, Industrial Disputes Act for inciting other workers to join an illegal strike. Parimal was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and the remaining petitioners were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each under Section 26 of the Act and 3 months under Section 27, Industrial Disputes Act, the sentences to run concurrently.

( 4 ) THERE was an appeal to the Sessions Judge, Alipore and the Additional Sessions Judge who heard the appeal set aside the conviction of the petitioners 1 to 3 under Section 28 of the Act; he maintained their conviction under Section 27 of the Act but reduced the sentence to S. I. for one month only. In case of petitioner No. 4 Sk, Karim he maintained the conviction under both