The main legal point established in the judgment is that only those responsible for the implementation of the settlement or award are liable to be prosecuted under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

R.R. Prasad, J.

1. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of I.D. Case No. 169 of 2003 initiated against the petitioners including the order dated 25.2.2003 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been taken against the petitioners and some others.

2. As per the case of the complainant [a Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Katrasgarh, Dhanbad an award was passed on 19.2.2001 by the Central Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad in reference No. 26 of 1993 whereby Management of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited was directed to regularize the services of Lal Babu Singh and 17 others within 30 days from the date of publication of the award. But the petitioner No. 1 being Company Secretary and the petitioner No. 2 being the Director (P&P) nominated owner of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and other persons responsible in terms of Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act for the implementation of the award, did not implement the award and thereby they

violated the provision of Section 18 read with Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act and hence committed offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the said complaint, cognizance of the offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act was taken against the petitioners and others.

3. Being aggrieved with that, the petitioners have challenged the order taking cognizance of the offence on the ground that the company had already nominated the authorities to act as employer in terms of Section 2(g) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such any other officers of the company than the authority nominated to act as employer are not liable to be prosecuted under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

4. In this regard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that earlier also when notice was issued to the authorities other than those who were nominated to act as employer to show cause as to why not they be prosecuted under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the same was challenged before this Court taking the same plea on which cognizance order has been sought to be quashed. This Court after taking into consideration the fact that M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited by letter dated 4.11.1998 had already informed the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Dhanbad about the authorities of different units of the company who shall be competent to sign

settlement, written statement, rejoinder etc. and also shall be responsible for

implementation of the award given by the Industrial Dispute Tribunal, this Court

did hold in W.P. (L) No. 802 of 2002 that the officers, other than those who

have been specified and prescribed by the company, are not liable to be prosecuted under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

5. In this regard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that Chief General Manager/General Manager have been prescribed by the company to be the officer responsible for implementation of the award so far Colliery Project Area is concerned and in that view of the matter, the petitioners who happened to be the company Secretary and Director (P&P) nominated owner of the company have nothing to do with the implementation of the award and as such any prosecution under the Industrial Disputes Act for non-implementation of the

award is fit to be quashed.

6. It is well-known that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act including Section 29 of the Act have been enacted to safeguard the interest of the persons engaged in the industry and also for the purpose of maintaining industrial peace and for achieving this purposes Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal have been constituted and have been vested with the power to adjudicate dispute and to make award and if these awards or the settlements are not implemented by the Management, the offi