V RAM RAO Vs. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the order dated 29th March 1984 passed by the 1st respondent in IAA/CR -104/83 -84 produced as Annexure 'M' in the writ petition and also for issuing a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate direction restraining the Munsiff and First Class Magistrate, Chikmagalur, from proceeding further with C.C. No.701 of 1984 on his file.

(2.) IT is contended by the petitioners that there is a dispute as to the contents of the settlement for the violation of which the sanction is accorded for prosecution; therefore, the order of sanction is bad in law; that there is no determination as to the terms of settlement; that the sanction is accorded for prosecution without application of mind.

(3.) IN this case, we are of the view that it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether there has been satisfaction on the part of the authority who accorded sanction; because this is a case in which the very terms of the settlement dated 9th February 1983 are disputed. It is necessary to mention that on 6th February 1983 the parties had a joint meeting and they agreed for certain terms which were reduced into writing and signed by the parties the original of which is produced as Annexure 'A' which reads thus : 'Points agreed at the Joint Meeting held at T.B. on 6th February 1983 a 3 p.m. when MSRs/M. P. Padmegowda, M. S. Balakrishna, T. S. Uthaiah, A. K. Vishwanath and V. Rama Rao were present. 1. To take 17 workers as suggested by the Union from 9th February 1983 after due verification.