Bhave, J.

l. The petitioner is a Manager of Satna Cement Works, Satna. In the said Cement Works the employees resorted to strike on 20-121964 at 2 p. M. and the same lasted upto 10 A. M. the next day. On 15•21965 a complaint was presented before the Labour Court under section 89 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, against respondents 1 to 4. A preliminary objection was raised before the Labour Court on 25-3-1965 to the effect that before a declaration was obtained that the strike was illegal, the complaint under section 89 of the Act against the respondents for their having instigated the strike could not be filed and, as such, the complaint was not tenable. The Labour Court overruled the objection and held that no pre-declaration was necessary and the Labour Court could make an enquiry as to whether the strike was il1egal or not in the present proceedings. On this reasoning, the objection was rejected on 14-10-1965. The respondents 1 to 4 thereupon moved the Industrial Court. That Court by its order dated 28-7-1966, upheld the objection. The present petition challenges the said order of the Industrial Court.

2. The reasoning adopted by the Industrial Court, in brief, is that under section 82 of the Industrial Relations Act alone a strike can be declared illegal and unless the strike is declared illegal under that section, no penalty can be imposed either on the employee or the instigator. It was held that the language of sections 88 and 89 clearly indicated that the declaration of strike as illegal under section 82 was a condition precedent for filing a complaint under sections 88 and 89; and inasmuch as there was no such declaration, the complaint was not tenable.

3. We must first point out that section 82 of the Act is not attracted in the case at all. Section 82 empowers the State Government to make a reference to a Labour Court or the Industrial Court for a declaration whether any proposed strike, lock• out, closure or stoppage will be illegal. This section thus deals with a situation where there is a possibility of a strike or a tock-out, and it does not deal with Cases where the strike has already taken place. Reliance on section 82 and the conclusion on the basis of section 82 that, that was the only method of securing a declaration is not, therefore, justified. Under section 61 of the Industrial Relations Act, the Labour Court in addition to powers conferred under other provisions of the Act, has been conferred the power to decide whether a strike; Jock-out, stoppage, closure or any change is illegal under the Act. This power clearly contemplates of declaring a strike illegal after it actually took place. Under section 62 of the Act, an application for getting a strike declared illegal can be filed within three months of the commencement of the strike. Section 63 then provides that no Labour Court shall take cognizance of any offence except on a com_ plaint in writing made by the person affected thereby or the representative of employees or on a report in writing by the Labour Court. Section 63 thus clearly contemplates that the same Labour Court, which can entertain an application for dec1aring a strike as illegal, can also entertain a complaint under section 89 which provides for punishment of persons instigating illegal strike. This brings us to the interpretation of sections 88 and 89 of the Act. They read as follows:

"88. Penalty for commencing illegal strike or illegal stoppage Any employee who has gone on strike or stoppage or who joins a strike or a stoppage which a Labour Court or the Industrial Court has declared to be illegal shall, on conviction, be punishable with fine, which may extend to ten rupees and in the case of his continuing on strike or on stoppage, as the case may be, after the lapse of forty eight hours after it is declared to be illegal, with an additional fine which may extend to one rupee per day for every day during which such strike or stoppage continues after such con