Judgment.- This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondents by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sankari. The appeal is now confined only to accused 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9, of whom the first accused is the Mettur Industries, the second accused is the Chairman of the Board of Directors and the rest are all Directors. One A. R. Varma, a Weaving Production Clerk in the Mettur Industries, was dismissed by its then Manager on the ground that he was found sleeping during the might shift. The said Varma preferred a complaint to the Industrial Tribunal, Coimbatore, and the Tribunal, after enquiry, passed an award directing the reinstatement of the dismissed clerk. The said award was published in the Fort St. George Gazette on 10th April, 1957. Under section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the award became enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication i.e., it became enforceable on 9th May, 1957. But even on 9th May, 1957, the dismissed servant was not reinstated. P.W. 2, the General Secretary of the National Textile Employees Union, at Mettur, which is a registered one, wrote a letter to the Manager, Mettur Industries, asking him to reinstate the dismissed employee but the reply that was received was that the Mettur Industries was contemplating an appeal to the Supreme Court. The first accused moved the Supreme Court for leave to appeal but leave was refused on 24th May, 1957. Then after 24th May, 1957, there were certain negotiations between the Union and the Manager of the Mettur Industries and finally the above said Varma was reinstated on 13th July, 1957. The prosecution case is that the said Varma was not reinstated by 9th May, 1957, the date when the award became enforceable. The Act does not say as to when a dismissed servant is to be reinstated after the award in the dispute but section 17-A says that the award would become enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication under section 17. There is no dispute that the award was published on 10th April, 1957 and there is also no dispute that the award became enforceable on 9th May, 1957. Does this phrase “ the award becomes enforceable on the expiry of 30 days” mean that the reinstatement must be made within that time ? There is no dispute that the award was published on 10th April, 1957 and there is also no dispute that the award became enforceable on 9th May, 1957. Does this phrase “ the award becomes enforceable on the expiry of 30 days” mean that the reinstatement must be made within that time ? The language used in the case is that the award becomes enforceable on the expiry of 30 days, i.e., till 30 days the terms of the award cannot be enforced, only on the expiry of 30 days, it becomes enforceable. Section 29 says that any person who commits a breach of the terms of the award shall be punishable. On a reading of the two sections I should think that the expression "the award becomes enforceable on the expiry of 30 days” means that the reinstatement, on the dismissal being found to be wrongful, must be given effect to by the time the award becomes enforceable, that is, within 30 days of the publication of the award. On this interpretation, undoubtedly the dismissed servant was not reinstated within 30 days that is by 9th May, 1957 but was reinstated only on 13th July, 1957. The first accused was taking steps to file an appeal against the award to the Supreme Court when it was entitled to do, and even after the dismissal there were negotiations between the Mettur Industries and the dismissed servant. The negotiations seemed to relate to payment of compensation to Varma in respect of the complaint. Finally by payment of back wages the said Varma was reinstated on 13th July, 1957. Thus the reinstatement was undoubtedly long after the expiry of the 30 days. Between 9th May, 1957 and 24th May, 1957 the first accused was bona fide taking steps to set aside the order of the Tribunal as they were not satisfied with the award and this, as pointed out earlier, they are entitled to do. Subsequently, from 24th May, 1957 there were negotiations. It is on account of these circumstances that the reinstatement became delayed. Nevertheless, according to the provisions of the Act, strictly speaking, the said Varma ought to have been reinstated on 9th May, 1957. Subsequently, from 24th May, 1957 there were negotiations. It is on account of these circumstances that the reinstatement became delayed. Nevertheless, according to the provisions of the Act, strictly speaking, the said Varma ought to have been reinstated on 9th May, 1957. The delay in the case is not due to any dishonesty or wilful negligence on the part of the first accused but it was due to the honest belief on the part of the Manager that he was entitled to take steps to set aside the award and to enter into negotiations with the dismissed servant for payment of compensation. In those circumstances though I hold that the first accused has violated the terms of the provisions of the Act by not reinstating the dismissed servant on 9th May, 1957, and, therefore, they are only technically guilty of the offence, I think that a mere admonition will do. I therefore administer an admonition to the first accused in the case, finding that he is guilty of an offence under section 29 of the Act. But with regard to the Directors I do not think that even such a punishment is called for. So far as they are concerned, the acquittal is fully justified and the appeal is dismissed against them (that is accused 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9). The appeal is allowed only so far as the first accused is concerned. R.M. ----------------- Appeal allowed only as against first accused.