IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18.11.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.Nos.10332, 10333, 10334 and 10335 of 1999 Ramalinga Raya Reddy ...Petitioner in W.P.No.10332 of 1999 Bharathkumar ...Petitioner in W.P.No.10333 of 1999 C.R.Krishnamachary ...Petitioner in W.P.No.10334 of 1999 K.Srikkanth ...Petitioner in W.P.No.10335 of 1999 -vs- The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretary, Labour and Employment, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. ...Respondent in all writ petitions Prayer in all the writ petitions: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent in respect of G.O.(D)No.426 dated 24.05.1999 and quashing the same. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan For Respondent : Mr.A.Arumugam, Spl.G.P. C O M M O N O R D E R These four writ petitions are filed challenging the order of the Government in G.O.(D) No.426, Labour and Employment Department dated, 24.05.1999. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. By the aforesaid order, the Government sanctioned prosecution in terms of Section 34(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short I.D.Act). The allegation against the petitioners was that they have violated the terms of settlement reached between the parties and therefore, they are liable for punishment under Section 29 of the I.D.Act. By the aforesaid Government Order, the Inspector of Labour, Tiruvallur was authorised to file a prosecution application before the Judicial Magistrate Court at Ambattur. It is at this stage, the present writ petitions have been filed. Pending the writ petitions, this Court granted an order of interim stay on 18.06.1999, which was also made absolute on 09.09.2003. 3. Today when the matter was called, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the basis for prosecution is disappeared because the unions which gave original complaint before the Government had subsequently entered into a settlement and has also withdrawn the complaint made to the Government. In support of the same, the learned counsel also produced a settlement dated 30.06.2001 entered into between the petitioner management and the individual worker under Section 18(1) of the I.D.Act. By the terms of the settlement, the individual worker had agreed that the union which originally raised a dispute had agreed to withdraw all disputes including the complaint made to the Government. 4. In a writ proceedings, challenging the sanction for prosecution issued by the appropriate Government, namely, in the present case, the state Government, the petitioners cannot lead evidence in support of their averments that the basis for the complaint had disappeared or that the original complainants had withdrawn the complaint made before the Government. In the present case, the allegation raised against the petitioners was that there was a violation of the terms of settlement signed under Section 12 (3) of the I.D.Act. As to whether the terms of the settlement has been implemented or whether there was a violation of the terms of settlement, is purely a question of fact. At the maximum, the defence taken by the petitioners was a best defence which are available to them to be let in before the learned Magistrate Court. If the learned Magistrate is satisfied with the defence, then the prosecution complaint will be rejected. In the present case, the counsel for the petitioners cannot submit materials which is in the form of a defence to be pleaded before the appropriate criminal court. Even the so called defence that is produced before the Court is only a settlement under Section 18(1). As to how far such a settlement can override the provisions of settlement under Section 12(3) is also a matter of evidence. 5. In such circumstances, no case is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Government. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The dismissal of the writ petition will not prevent the petitioners from leading appropriate evidence before the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ trial court and whatever observation made by this Court will not stand in the way of the learned Magistrate coming to any independent conclusion regarding the violation of the settlement. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar svki To The Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu Labour and Employment, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. W.P.Nos.10332, 10333, 10334 and 10335 of 1999 VM (CO) GSK 12.12.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/