RAMALINGA RAYA REDDY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON Order: 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.

(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the unions which gave original complaint before the Government had subsequently entered into a settlement and has also withdrawn the complaint made to the Government.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.