J. DAS, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision arises out of the order dated 24-9-1985 passed by Sri. J. N. Panda, Sub- divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Cuttack in 2 (c) C. C. No. 111 of 1985 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 2 (ra) read with Section 25 - of the Industrial Disputes Act. ( 2 ) THE complainant S. N. Tripathy, the Production Manager of Orissa Cotton Mills, Bhagatpur, Cuttack filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging unfair labour practice. On the basis of these complaint petition cognizance was taken under Sections 2 (ra) and 25 - of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner (accused) raised objection that taking of cognizance is without jurisdiction. The learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, however, held that since he has taken the cognizance either rightly or wrongly, it is not open to him to set aside the order. In this circumstance, the petitioner has filed this criminal revision. ( 3 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioner argues that the complaint has not been filed by the statutory authority as required under Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act and hence the impugned order is vitiated. ( 4 ) SECTION 34 of the Act runs as follows: p34 (1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or of the abetment of any such offence save, on complaint made by or under the authority of the appropriate Government. Thus, according to the above section, complaint must be filed either by or under the authority of the appropriate Government. ( 5 ) IN this case appropriate Government is the State Government as per Section 2 (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. ( 6 ) UNDER Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act appropriate Government has been authorised to delegate its powers to other authorities by notification in the Official Gazette. Vide Notification No. 822/l (i)/171/64-Lab. dated 25th January, 1964, the Labour Commissioner, Orissa and all Assistant Labour Commissioners have been authorised to file complaint under the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, if the complaint is filed either by the Labour Commissioner or Assistant Labour Commissioner and cognizance is taken on such complaint, then taking of cognizance is in accordance with law. In this case the complaint has been filed by the Production Manager, Orissa Cotton Mills. Thus, if the complaint is filed either by the Labour Commissioner or Assistant Labour Commissioner and cognizance is taken on such complaint, then taking of cognizance is in accordance with law. In this case the complaint has been filed by the Production Manager, Orissa Cotton Mills. Sri S. N. Tripathy who is not competent to file the complaint under Section 34 of the Act. Hence, the impugned order is vitiated and the same must be quashed. ( 7 ) IN the result, the criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 24-9-85 is quashed.