Judgement ROXBURGH, J. :- This Rule is for quashing certain proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, Act XIV (14) of 1947. They have been started on the complaint of Mr. Parker, General Manager of Lloyds Bank Limited against some employees of the Bank alleging offences under Ss. 26 and 27 of the Act. Before lodging the complaint Mr. Parker obtained an authority dated 15-10-1948, from the Provincial Govt. A copy of the order is an annexure to the petition before us. The ground on which the Rule is supported before is apparently that under the provisions of S. 34, Industrial Disputes Act, Govt. cannot give authority to a private person to make a complaint of any offence punishable under the Act. Our attention has been called to some cases in which the similar provisions of S. 196, Cr. P. C. have been considered, but in none of them can we find the slightest support for the contention now put forward. No doubt, the control of the proceedings as regards the actual complaint is to be held by the Govt. and there are expressions to show that the person authorised cannot claim to, as it were extend the authority given to him in a general form according to his own views of the particular offences which should be prosecuted. No such question appears to arise here. The offences are specifically named in the authority, namely, offences under Ss. 26 and 27 of the Act, that is to say, offences by workmen in connection with illegal strikes or by others instigating workmen in such connection. 2. The real grievance of the petitioners as we understand is that the cases are being conducted and continued before the Magistrate by lawyers employed by Mr. Parker. On this aspect of the matter, we refer to Ch. 38, Cr. P. C. which regulates the question of prosecutions by private individuals and the position of the Public Prosecutor. It seems to us that if the accused have any grievance as to the manner in which the case is being conducted, they may make an objection to the Magistrate who would deal with it in accordance with the provisions of that chapter. No ground whatever has been made out before us for quashing the proceedings. 3. The Rule is accordingly discharged. 4. CHUNDER, J. :- I agree. Rule discharged.