The court emphasized the legal right of the petitioner to prosecute the respondent for breach of statutory settlement and the State Government's obligation to take action under the Industrial Disputes Act.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the State Government to initiate criminal action against the second respondent for the violation and breach of statutory settlement entered under section 12 (3) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. The petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and is affiliated to the State Transport Employees Federation. The Federation is affiliated to CITU. The Federation, as a Central Union, signed various wage settlements under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, with all the state owned transport Corporations, including the second respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents are guilty of the breach of statutory settlement between the workmen and the management as they have failed to pay wages as agreed to under the settlement.

4. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the violation committed by the second respondent, invoked Sec.29 of Industrial Disputes Act 1947, which reads as under:

29. Penalty for breach of settlement or award: –

Any person who commits a breach of any terms of any settlement or award, which is binding on him under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both, (and where the breach is a continuing one, with a further fine which may extend to two hundred rupees for every day during which the breach continues after the conviction for the first and the Court trying the offence, if it fines the offender, may direct that the whole or any part of the fine realised from him shall be paid, by way of compensation, to any person who, in its opinion, has been injured by such breach.”

5. The case of the petitioner is that criminal prosecution under Section 29 can be initiated only by the State Government through authorised person in view of Sec.34 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, which reads as under:

“34. Cognizance of offence: –

(1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offene punishable under this Act or of the abetment of any such offence, save on complaint made by or under the authority of the appropriate Government.

(2) No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent has opposed the petition by contending that the petitioner has a remedy to enforce the settlement under Sec.33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by claiming the determined amount payable to the workmen.

7. The defence of the respondents cannot be accepted. The respondents cannot be allowed to violate the statutory settlement entered into between the parties. The pleaded facts clearly shows that the State Government has failed to perform its statutory function under Sec.34 of the Industrial Disputes Act in not initiating the proceedings against the second respondent for violating the statutory settlement, inspite of the fact that the request for initiating the criminal proceedings was made by the petitioner as far back on 8.6.2009. It is proved that the petitioner has a legal right under Section 29 to prosecute the respondent and the respondent No.1 has also statutory obligation to file complaint under Section 34 of Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner has already raised a demand by filing complaint.

8. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to take a decision on the request of the petitioner for initiating proceedings against the second respondent under Sec.29 of the Industrial Disputes Act in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Consequently, connected MP is closed. No costs.