(1.) Through this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner has challenged his prosecution under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act and has prayed to quash the entire proceeding bearing No. 1819(M)/2002 as also the order dated 8-2-2002 passed by Sri B.B. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Patna thereby and thereunder the prayer for discharge has been rejected. The prosecution report dated 19-9-2002 lodged by the Enforcement Officer (Central), Patna goes to show that the petitioner has been prosecuted under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for non-implementation of Award dated 30-7-1996 by the Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad No. 2. Through the Award the management of UCO Bank, Patna was directed to reinstate and regularise the services of Sri Dilip Kumar Singh within two months of publication of the Award. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Patna-ll through its letter dated 20-5-1998 directed the petitioner to implement the Award but the same was not implemented.
(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is two fold. It is submitted 'that the maximum punishment under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes 'Act is only six months and section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 'provides limitation of only one year for taking cognizance in those cases which are punishable upto one year. In this very case the prosecution has been launched after more than one year. The other contention is that the Award has already been implemented in toto and the service of the person concerned has also been regularised.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the opposite-party No. 2 does not dispute the contention of the petitioner. On the other hand, he concedes that the service of opposite-party No. 3 has already been regularised. It is also apparent from the above facts that the prosecution has been launched and cognizance has been taken in this case after expiry of limitation period prescribed under the law.