Judgment Anand Prasad Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against the order dated 19-1-79, passed in GR. Case No. 955/76, taking cognizance of the offence under Rule 36(6)(j) and 43(5) of the Defense of India Rule against the petitioner. 2. It appears that the petitioner happened to be the Engineer In charge of M/s. S.K. Mitra Company Private Limited, situated at Jamshedpur. 3. Four workers had been dismissed and that gave rise to an industrial dispute. However, the matter was referred to an arbitrator and it was agreed upon that the decision of the arbitrator shall be binding on both the parties. The arbitrator had given an award that all the four dismissed workers be reinstated. It appears that the four workers had not been reinstated by the Firm and that being so, the prosecution had been initiated as stated above. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that no prosecution could be launched under Rule 36(6) of the Defense of India Rule. On a plain reading of the provision laid down under Rule 36(6)(j), it will appear that it is applicable to the workers and that too when minimum 100 workers are employed. There is no statement either in the F.I.R. or in the charge-sheet that minimum 100 workers are employed in this firm. 5. Further it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that in accordance with Rule 170 of the Defense of India Rule a prosecution can be said to be valid if the firm imp leaded as one of the accused and also the person responsible for the act giving rise to the violation has to be ascertained as he would be the only person liable for prosecution. 6. I find sufficient force in this contention. Since the firm has not been made an accused the criminal prosecution, is vitiated. Moreover, there is absolutely no mention of the fact that the petitioner was the person who had been responsible for the dismissal of the employees and it was the petitioner who was in charge of the affairs of the company at the time when the alleged occurrence has taken place and the petitioner was the person who had either a link or responsibility for acting up on the award given by the arbitrator. 7. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am afraid that there has been misapplication of the provisions of Defense of India Rule and consequently, the penal offence as laid down under Rule 43(5) is also not attracted. 8. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order of taking cognizance and also the criminal prosecution thereto is hereby quashed.