Judgment :- 1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred by the accused in C. C. No. 237 of 1956 of the Stationary First Class Magistrate's Court, Neyyattinkara. He was convicted of an offence under S.29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. On appeal the conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Trivandrum. 2. The case against the accused was that he committed breach of the terms of the award given by the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum, in Industrial Dispute No. 71 of 1955. Ext. P-1 is a copy of the award and it was published by the Government by notification (Ext. P-2) dated 9th November, 1955. The dispute was between the proprietors of M. V. Motor Service and A. V. N. Motor Service, Neyyattinkara, and their workmen. Ext. P-1 directed reinstatement of some workmen, supply of khaki uniforms to workmen, and payment of bonus. The Secretary of the Trivandrum District Motor. Service and Workshop Employees Union informed the Assistant Labour Commissioner that the accused and the proprietor of A. V. N. Motor Service had committed breach of the award and requested him to take appropriate steps in the matter. The Labour Commissioner moved the Government, and the Government passed an order (Ext. P-4) on 22 61956 directing the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Trivandrum, to prosecute the accused and Velayudhan Nadar, proprietor of A. V. N. Motor Service for an offence under S.29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. This prosecution was accordingly launched against the accused by the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The only point which appears to have been taken before the trial Magistrate as well as in appeal was that the award was void and was not enforceable. This contention was found against and the accused was convicted. 3. The first point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the trial was vitiated by the omission to question the accused under S.342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It may be stated at the outset that this point was not taken in the courts below or even in the revision petition. At the commencement of the trial the accused appeared and when the complaint was read out to him, he pleaded not guilty. It may be stated at the outset that this point was not taken in the courts below or even in the revision petition. At the commencement of the trial the accused appeared and when the complaint was read out to him, he pleaded not guilty. On his application he was thereafter exempted from personal appearance and at the conclusion of the trial he did not choose to appear and his counsel gave a statement on his behalf. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to several decisions in support of the argument that the failure to question the accused personally is a fatal defect and urged that the conviction should be quashed on this ground. There are decisions of the High Courts of Madras, Rangoon and Andhra which lay down the proposition that in a summons case, like the present one, it is not obligatory for the court to question the accused under S.342. It has also been laid down that S.342 must be read subject to S.205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A contrary view has been taken by the High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, Allahabad, Nagpur, Sind and Pepsu. In my opinion it is unnecessary to decide the question in this case. It has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in Mathew v. T C State, (A. I. R.1956 S. C. 241) that the question of prejudice on account of non-examination or defective examination under S.342 is a point that should be taken up at least in the appellate court. Although the omission to take the objection in the grounds of appeal may not necessarily be fatal it was held that the fact that the objection was not taken at an earlier stage was a material circumstance that should necessarily weigh heavily against the accused particularly when he was represented by counsel throughout and that the court was entitled to conclude that a person who deliberately withheld facts within his special knowledge and refused to give the court that assistance which is its right and due, had nothing of value which he could disclose and that if he did disclose anything that would at once expose the hollowness of his cause. If the accused is not afforded the opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him he is entitled to ask the appellate court to place him in the same position as he would have been in, had he been asked. The Supreme Court concludes thus: "Therefore all he is entitled to say on appeal is, 'I was not asked to explain this matter- Here is my explanation, this is what I would have said: please consider it". But if he does not take up that position at the appellate stage and complains of prejudice for the first time here, the inference is strong that the plea is an afterthought and that there was no real prejudice." This position is re-affirmed by the Supreme Court in Moseb Chowdhry v. West Bengal State (A. I. R.1956 S. C. 536). It is clear that the accused in this case was not prejudiced in any manner. If he was actually prejudiced by the omission to question him personally, he would have taken up that as a ground in appeal before the Court of Sessions. I have already pointed out that this is not referred to even in the revision petition before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to show how he was prejudiced. This is a case in which the accused was deliberately keeping himself back on the strength of the order exempting him from personal appearance and there was nothing to prevent him from giving a statement at the conclusion of the trial. In these circumstances I hold that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. 4. The second point raised is that the award is against the proprietor of M. V. Motor Service while the prosecution is against M. Velayudhan, described as the "proprietor of M. W. Motor Service now known as M. V. Industries Limitd, Neyyattinkara." It is urged that the prosecution had not proved that the two persons are identical. There is no substance in this contention. The prosecution witnesses deposed that the accused was the proprietor of M. V. Motor Service and that at the time of the trial he was the Managing Director of M. V. Industries Limited. The witnesses were not cross-examined on this point. Ext. There is no substance in this contention. The prosecution witnesses deposed that the accused was the proprietor of M. V. Motor Service and that at the time of the trial he was the Managing Director of M. V. Industries Limited. The witnesses were not cross-examined on this point. Ext. P-10 is a letter sent by the accused to the Industrial Tribunal on 10-5-1955 in reply to the notice received by him to appear before the Tribunal. The letter if written on a paper with the heading: M. V. Motor Service, Neyyat-tinkara-Proprietor M. Velayudhan. This letter is also referred to in the award, Ext. P-1. This is a question of fact and a specific plea has not been taken in the appeal or even in the revision petition The contention is therefore overruled. 5. The third ground taken by the petitioner is that in giving the sanction the Government did not apply its mind to the matter and that the sanction is therefore defective. Reliance was placed on the decision Jiwan Das v. Robin Sen (A. I. R.1956 Cal. 64) where it was held that the sanction given by the Government for a prosecution under the Industrial Disputes Act was defective, as the same did not indicate whether one or more offences had been committed, where the offence was committed, and when the offence was said to have been committed. That was a case of an offence under S.27 of the Industrial Disputes Act which refers to instigating or inciting others to take part or act in furtherance of an illegal strike or lock out. The sanction given by the Government in that case disclosed none of the relevant matters. So far as this case is concerned, the question involved was a simple one, namely, whether a breach of the award was committed by the accused. Ext. P4 is the sanction given by the Government It refers to the fact that the award in Industrial Dispute No. 71 of 1955 became enforceable on 9-12-1955 and that the accused and the proprietor of A. V. N. Motor Service did not care to implement the same in spite of efforts of the Labour Department and that the accused gave an evasive reply when a notice to show cause why he should not be prosecuted was served on him. The sanction states: "In the circumstances stated by the Labour Commissioner sanction is accorded to the Asst. Labour Commissioner, Trivandrum, under S.34 [1] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1917 for prosecuting Shri M. Velayudhan, Managing Director, M. V. Industries Ltd. Neyyatinkara and Shri A Velayudhan Nadar, Proprietor, A. V. N. Motor Service, Neyyattinkara for an offence under S.29 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947" The 'circumstances' are referred to in the earlier part of the proceedings of the Government. It cannot therefore be said that the sanction is in any manner defective or that the Government did not apply its mind to the matter before giving the sanction. 6. The last point urged was that S.32 of the Industrial Disputes Act prescribed the procedure when offences under the Act are committed by companies, etc., and that prosecution, if at all, ought to have been under that section. There is no force in this argument. The party to the award was the proprietor of M. V. Motor Service and at the time of launching of the proserution, he was the managing director the of M. V. Industries Ltd. M. V. Industries Limited is neither a party to the award nor a successor or assign of the party. There would have been no justification for prosecuting him as an officer of the company when the offence was not one committed by the company. 7. No other point arises in this revision petition. The judgments of the courts below are therefore confirmed and the criminal revision petition is dismissed. Dismissed.