F K MENZLIN Vs. B P PREMAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:

(2.) Annexure 'C' is the order of sanction dated 13-7-1981 bearing No. IAA/Cr-164/80-81 passed by the Commissioner of Labour in Karnataka, Bangalore, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by the State Government in their Notification dated 5-2-1967 bearing No. LMA 545 LLE 66 read with Sections 29 and 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') according sanction for prosecution of the Management of NGEF-AEG Engineering Co. Ltd., Bangalore, for the alleged non-implementation of Clause 5.2 of the Settlement dated 31-3-1930.

(3.) Sri. R.N. Narasimha Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioners, contends that the order according sanction for prosecuting the Management of NGEF-AEG Engineering Co. Ltd., Bangalore, is bad in law, because it does not disclose application of mind by the Authority; that in the matter of according sanction for prosecution the authority is required to apply its mind to the relevant facts of the case which disclose the offence for which the sanction is accorded; that unless it is forthcoming in the order of sanction itself, there will not be any proof for the authority having applied its mind to the facts necessary for according sanction; that the object of Section 34 of the Act is to eliminate frivolous prosecution which can be against the Management as well as against the labourers; that in order to safeguard the interest of both, Section 34 provides that no offence can be taken cognizance of unless the complaint is filed either by the Government or under the authority of the appropriate Government.