C.W.P. No.11918 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.11918 of 2006 Decided on :18-12-2008 Rajpal ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab & others. ....Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- Present:- Ms. Esha Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Aman Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondent No.2. HEMANT GUPTA, J The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Labour Commissioner on 27.06.2006 (Annexure P-9), whereby a finding was returned that the Award in favour of the workman stands implemented and there is no need to initiate criminal proceedings against the Management. In an Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner, the Labour Court passed an Award on 11.10.2001, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of services, but without back wages. The Award was not implemented. An application filed by the petitioner to prosecute the Management in terms of the Section 29 of the Industrial C.W.P. No.11918 of 2006 -2- Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). On the said application, the prosecution was launched against the Management. Subsequently, on a representation filed by the Management, an order has been passed after hearing the workman on 27.06.2006 (Annexure P-9) that the Award stands implemented and in fact, the workman willfully absented from duty and that there is no need to initiate criminal proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the Labour Commissioner are fully unjustified and not sustainable. It is also argued that once the prosecution has been initiated and the matter is pending before the Judicial Court, the Labour Commissioner has no jurisdiction to withdraw the complaint. An order of withdrawal of the complaint to be passed by the Court, before whom the proceedings for prosecution are pending against the Management. The Labour Commissioner exercising the power of the State Government is the defender of the rights of the workman and in terms of such right, he has lodged a complaint before the competent Court. The role of the Labour Commissioer is not more than that of a public prosecutor in a criminal prosecution. Therefore, any withdrawal from prosecution has to be with the permission of the Court. An order is required permitting the prosecution of the complaint to be withdrawn after hearing the workman. Such withdrawal cannot be unilateral at the instance of the State Government. In view of the said fact, we dispose of the present writ petition to treat the order (Annexure-9) as an application for permission to withdraw from the prosecution. However, if any application is filed by the Labour C.W.P. No.11918 of 2006 -3- Commissioner/State Government before the Court before whom the proceedings are pending, the learned Court will pass an appropriate order after hearing the petitioner. With the said direction, the present writ petition is disposed of. Parties through their counsel to appear before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dera Bassi on 10.02.2009 for further proceedings in accordance with law. (Hemant Gupta) Judge 18th December 2008. (Augustine George Masih) Monika Judge