G. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition was initially filed under Article 226 of the constitution for quashing the order dated 16. 1. 1992 passed by District Magistrate, Jhansi granting sanction under section 16 of the D. P. Industrial Disputes Act (herein after referred to as the Act) for the prosecution of the petitioners and directing the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jhansi to file a complaint under section 14-A of the Act against them. Since at the time of the presentation of the writ petition, a criminal complaint had already been filed under section 14-A of the Act against the petitioners in the court of C. J. M. Jhansi on 31. 1. 1992, a division Bench of this court passed an order on 18. 2. 1992 permitting the petitioners to convert the petition into one under section 482 Cr. P. C. Thereafter the writ petition was converted into a petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. and the principal relief claimed therein is quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 332 of 1992 (State of UP. v. Anura) Sharma and others) pending in the court of C. J. M. Jhansi. The parties have exchanged affidavits and therefore, the petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage with the consent of the parties. ( 2 ) THE fact which emerge out of the affidavits filed by the respective parties are that Ram Krishna Gupta respondent No. 4 was appointed as senior clerk in Sri Vaidya Nath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. Jhansi on 20. 7. 1973 but his services were terminated on 20. 12. 1973. At the instance of respondent No. 4 the State Government made a reference to Labour Court (5) Kanpur on 28. 11. 1974 under section 10 (1) (c) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (Act No. XIV of 1947) to the effect as to whether the termination of service of the workman on 20. 12. 1973 was valid and if not to what benefit/compensation the workman was entitled to get. The reference made by the State Government was registered as Adjudication Case No. 321 of 1974 and was renumbered as case No. 218 of 1978. The Labour Court gave its award on 30. 8. 1979 directing reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and back wages w. e. f. the date of termination of service till the date of his actual reinstatement and other benefits. The Labour Court gave its award on 30. 8. 1979 directing reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and back wages w. e. f. the date of termination of service till the date of his actual reinstatement and other benefits. The employers challenged the award of the Labour court by filing writ petition No. 1681 of 1980 which was admitted and the operation of the award was stayed on 22. 2. 1980. An application was moved by respondent No. 4 for vacating the stay order when the interim order was modified on 10. 4. 1980 and the employers were directed to deposit the entire sum of money due to the workman under the award as arrears of salary upto date within a month and they were further directed to deposit the salary of the workman for the period subsequent to the date of the award with the Labour Court regularly. On 12. 10. 1984 an order was passed whereby the employers were given liberty to take work from respondent No. 4 on payment bf wages that became payable to him in terms of the award and for this purpose he was directed to report for duty by 29. 10. 1984. It is admitted to both the sides that respondent No. 4 reported for duty on 29. 10. 1984 and he was taken back in service and the employers paid him salary (or the subsequent months. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed by the High Court on 17. 12. 1985. Subsequently respondent No. 4 moved an application before the Deputy Labour Commissioner Jhansi on 27. 10. 1986 under section 6-H of the Act stating that he had not been paid the entire money due to him under the. award given by the Labour Court in Adjudication case No. 218 of 1978. It was prayed that the employers be directed to pay him Rs. 50,200/- towards arrears of salary after including dearness allowance, house rent, bonus and other benefits which he had been held entitled under the award. This application was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 1987. After hearing the parties, the Deputy Labour Commissioner Jhansi by its order dated 23. 3. 1987 held that the workman, was entitled to Rs. 67,912. 10; out of which the employers, had already deposited Rs. 36,596. 75 and therefore, the employers were liable to pay Rs. 31,315. 35 to him. Case No. 1 of 1987. After hearing the parties, the Deputy Labour Commissioner Jhansi by its order dated 23. 3. 1987 held that the workman, was entitled to Rs. 67,912. 10; out of which the employers, had already deposited Rs. 36,596. 75 and therefore, the employers were liable to pay Rs. 31,315. 35 to him. The employers then gave a cheque for Rs. 31,315. 35 dated 21. 4. 1987 to respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4 had in the mean while filed another application under section 15 (2) of payment of Wages Act on 15. 4. 1987 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jhansi alleging that the employers had not paid him Rs. 31,315,35 and 10 per cent house rent as directed by the order dated 23. 3. 1987 and therefore a direction be issued for payment of Rs. 44,446. 85 and also Rs. 4,44,468. 50 as compensation. This application was registered. as P. W. Case No. 36 of 1987. The payment of wages Authority/deputy Labour Commissioner by his order dated 7. 6. 1988 held that the employers had-given a cheque for Rs. 31,315. 35 to respondent No. 4 on 21. 4. 1987 and accordingly directed the employers to pay Rs. 25/ - only as compensation and Rs. 20/- as costs to him. This amount of Rs. 45/- was also paid by the employers to respondent No. 4 by cheque on 16. 6. 1988. It appears that sometime in the year 1991, the respondent No. 4 moved an application before the District Magistrate Jhansi under section 14a of the Act for giving sanction for the prosecution of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that they had not complied with the award given by Labour/court in Adjudication Case No. 218 of 1978. After hearing the parties, the District Magistrate Jhansi has granted the requisite sanction for prosecution of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 under section 14a of the Act on 16. 1. 1992. ( 3 ) AFTER the sanction has been granted by the District Magistrate, the Deputy Labour Commissioner Jhansi has filed a criminal complaint under section 14 A of the Act against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 under section 14a of the Act on 16. 1. 1992. ( 3 ) AFTER the sanction has been granted by the District Magistrate, the Deputy Labour Commissioner Jhansi has filed a criminal complaint under section 14 A of the Act against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and two others in the court of CJM, Jhansi The case set up in the complaint is that the accused are responsible for the implementation of the award given against Sri Vaidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. Jhansi: that a dispute between the employers and the workman Sri Ram Krishna Gupta was referred to Labour Court (5) Kanpur where it was registered as Adjudication case No. 218 of 1978 and an award was given on 30. 8. 1979 which was published on 21. 11. 1979, that as per the direction of the award, the workman was reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages and other benefit, that the workman has not been given seniority w. e. f. 20. 12. 1973 and other benefits in accordance with the award, that the employers had not implemented the 5lward in full and therefore they had committed an offence under section 14 A of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. A copy of the complaint dated 31. 1. 1992 has been filed as annexure SA 1 to the supplementary affidavit. It is admitted to the party that the learned Magistrate has passed an order summoning the accused for trial. The present petition has been tiled for quashing of this complaint and the summoning order passed against the accused: ( 4 ) THE scheme of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act shows that where the State Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may refer the dispute to a Labour court or to an Industrial Tribunal as the case may be for adjudication under section 4-K of the Act. Section 6 (1) of the Act provides that where an industrial dispute has been referred to a Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication, it shall hold its proceedings expeditiously and submit its award to the State Government. Section 6 (1) of the Act provides that where an industrial dispute has been referred to a Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication, it shall hold its proceedings expeditiously and submit its award to the State Government. The State Government can then publish the award within 30 days from the date of its receipt under section 6 (3) of the Act and the award becomes enforcible on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication under section 6-A (1) of the Act. Section 6-H (1) provides that where any money is due to a workman from an employer under an award, the workman may without prejudice to any other mode of recovery make an application to the State Government for the recovery of money due to him and after the State Government is satisfied that any money is so due it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector, who shall proceed to recover the same as if it were an arrears of land revenue. Section 6-H (2) provides that where any workman is entitiled to receive from the employer any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the amount at which such benefit should be computed may be determined by the Labour Court and the amount so determine4 may be recovered as provided for in sub section (1 ). The proceedings under section 6- H of the Act are in the nature of execution proceedings wherein the State Government or the Labour Court computes the amount of money due to a workman from his employer. This calculation or computation follows upon an existing right to the money or benefit in view of its being previously adjudged or adjudicated upon. The power under section 6-H (I) has been delegated by the State Government to the Deputy Labour Commissioner. The money which a workman is found entitled to set under section 6 H (i) or under section 6-H (2) of the Act can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Thus the act itself provides a complete machinery for the execution of the award and a workman can get arrears of salary or other benefits accrued to him under an award of labour court by taking recourse to proceedings under section 6-H of the Act. Thus the act itself provides a complete machinery for the execution of the award and a workman can get arrears of salary or other benefits accrued to him under an award of labour court by taking recourse to proceedings under section 6-H of the Act. The legislature has also made provision for expeditious recovery of the amount due to a workman by providing that the same can be recovered as arrears of land revenue by sending a certificate to the Collector. Section 14-A provides that any person who commits a breach of any term of any settlement or award which is binding on him under the Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both, and where a breach is continuing one with further fine which may extend to two hundred rupees for every day during which the breach continues after the conviction for the first breach. Section 15 provides that notwithstanding anything, contained in the second schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, any police officer may arrest without warrant any person who is reasonably suspected of having committed or of committing or of being about to commit a contravention of any rule or order made under the Act. Section 18 provides that any person who attempts to contravene or abets a contravention of any rule or order made or deemed to be made under this Act, shall be deemed to have contravened that order. Section 20 provides that if the person contravening a Trule or order made or deemed to be made under the Act is a company or other body corporate, very director, manager, Secretary, or other officer or agent thereof shall linless he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge, or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention be deemed to be guilty of such contravention. A scrutiny of the penal provisions of the Act would show that they are quite stringent. The U. P. Industrial Disputes Act has been enacted to prevent strikes and lock outs and to settle industrial disputes and for other incidental matters. One of the basic object of the Act is to maintain harmony between employers and their workmen and industrial peace. The U. P. Industrial Disputes Act has been enacted to prevent strikes and lock outs and to settle industrial disputes and for other incidental matters. One of the basic object of the Act is to maintain harmony between employers and their workmen and industrial peace. It is not a penal statute where an act or omission contrary to the provisions thereof is made punishable like the Indian Penal Code. The Penal Provisions of the Act being very stringent they should not be lightly resorted to. A prosecution under section 14a of the Act should be launched only where there is a deliberate attempt not to implement the award or there is a gross defiance of the terms thereof; Normally a workman who is entitled to get some benefit under the award should move an application under section 6-H of the Act. The provision for prosecution for breach of any terms of an award under Section 14a of the Act has been made with a view to put pressure upon a person bound by an award to implement the same where the award has been implemented in substance, it would not be proper to launch a prosecution for some minor breach there of. ( 5 ) THE operative portion of the award given by the Labour court on 30. 8. 1979 provided that the respondent No. 4 was entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and also back wages w. e. f. 20. 12. 1973 till the date of actual reinstatement in service along with other benefits. Respondent-4 moved an application under Section, 6-H (1) of the Act on 27. 10. 1986 wherein he claimed the arrears of salary and other benefits accrued to him under the award. The Deputy Labour Commissioner after taking into consideration the basic salary annual increment, dearness allowance, contribution towards E. S. I and provident fund and bonus held that he was entitled to get Rs. 67,912. 10, out of which he had already received Rs. 36,596. 75 and an amount of Rs. 31,315. 35 was due to him from the employers. A copy of the order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner on 23. 3. 1987 in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1977 has been filed as annexure-7 to the petition. It is not disputed that this amount of Rs. 31,315. 35 was paid to respondent No. 4 by means of a cheque dated 21. A copy of the order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner on 23. 3. 1987 in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1977 has been filed as annexure-7 to the petition. It is not disputed that this amount of Rs. 31,315. 35 was paid to respondent No. 4 by means of a cheque dated 21. 4. 1987. Soon after the order had been passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the respondent No. 4 had moved an application before the Payment of Wages Authority on 15. 4. 1987 and in the said proceedings he not only claimed the aforesaid balance amount of Rs. 31,315. 35 but also house-rent at the rate of 10 per cent. In this proceedings it was held that entire amount due under the award had been paid to the work man on 21. 4. 1987 and thus only Rs. 25t-was awarded as compensation to him. A copy of the order dated 7. 6,1988 of the payment of Wages Authority given in P. W. case No. 36 of 1987 has been filed as Annexure-lo to the petition. The respondent No. 4 has not disputed the correctness of the orders dated 23. 3. 1987 and 7. 6. 1988. Thus it is fully established that the entire amount due to respondent No. 4 under the award has already been paid to him as far back as 21. 4. 1987 and no amount is due to him from the employers. It is also admitted that respondent No. 4 reported for duty on 29. 10. 1984 and he was reinstated and was paid salary for the subsequent months. Thus the award given by the Labour court has been fully complied with by the employers and it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that they have committed breach of the terms of the award. ( 6 ) RESPONDENT No. 4 has submitted that the employers have not paid him house rent allowance and therefore, the award given by the Labour Court had not been complied with. The perusal of the award will show that there was no direction for payment of house rent allowance therein to the workman. This demand was again made by him before the payment of Wages Authority in P. W. case No. 36 of 1987. In the said case a specific issue was raised as to whether the workman was entitled to house rent. This demand was again made by him before the payment of Wages Authority in P. W. case No. 36 of 1987. In the said case a specific issue was raised as to whether the workman was entitled to house rent. The authority held that the workman failed to establish that he was entitled to house rent or that it was part of his service condition on these findings is claim was rejected. In this view of the matter, it is not open to respondent No. 4 to contend that as the employers have not paid him house rent allowance, the award given by the Labour Court has not been complied with. Thus in view of the findings recorded in the earlier proceedings instituted by the Workman against his employer namely Misc. Case No. 1 of 1987 under section 6h of the Act and P. W. Case No. 36 of 1987 under the Payment of wages act, the irresistible conclusion is that the employers have fully complied with the terms of the award and no amount is due to respondent No. 4. It cannot therefore, be said that the petitioners have committed breach of the terms of the award and their prosecution under section 14-A of the Act is wholly unsustainable in law. ( 7 ) RESPONDENT No. 4 has further contended that as he was not given promotion from the post of senior clerk, an inference can be drawn that the employers have committed breach of term of the award. In this connection it may be noticed that the award of the Labour Court had not given any such direction that the workman will be given promotion in service. The State Government had only referred the dispute regarding the validity of the termination order dated 20. 12. 1973 by which the workman had been removed from service. There was no reference regarding any dispute of promotion of the workman concerned. The Labour Court has confined to the dispute referred to it and has given award only regarding validity of the termination of service. There is not even slightest whisper in the award to the effect that the workman is entitled to any promotion. In fact if the Labour Court had even any such finding, it would have been beyond jurisdiction as the court can not travel beyond the scope of the reference made to it. There is not even slightest whisper in the award to the effect that the workman is entitled to any promotion. In fact if the Labour Court had even any such finding, it would have been beyond jurisdiction as the court can not travel beyond the scope of the reference made to it. That apart it is well settled that promotion is a managerial function and no direction in this regard can be made by the Labour Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the employers have committed breach of the terms of the award by not giving promotion to respondent No. 4 and the contention advanced by him is wholly misconceived. Respondent No. 4 has next submitted that by order dated 26. 12. 1990, he was promoted to the newly created post of Public Relations Officer in the Company w. e. f. 1. 1. 1991 but his services were illegally terminated on 29. 9. 199 1, and thus by termination of his service, the employers have rendered themselves liable for prosecution. The submission of the respondent No. 4 is wholly fallacious. The prosecution has been launched on the ground of alleged breach of the award given on 30. 8. 1979 in Adjudication Case No. 218 of 1978. Admittedly neither any dispute regarding the termination order dated 29. 9. 1991 has been referred nor there is any award of the Labour Court in respect thereof. On the contrary the record, shows that the petitioner filed writ petition No. 17704 of 1991 in this court challenging the termination order dated 29. 9. 1991 but the said writ petition was dismissed on 11. 11. 1991 and the review application was also dismissed on 3. 1. 1992. Copies of these orders have been filed as annexures 14 and 15 to the petition. Thus the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for terminating the service of respondent No. 4 on 29. 9. 199 1. ( 8 ) THERE is another aspect of the case which cannot be overlooked. The award of the Labour Court was given on 30. 8. 1979 which was published under section 6 (3) of the Act on 21. 11. 1979 and became in forcible on expiry of thirty days there from under section 6-A of the Act, i. e. on 21. 12. 1979. The award of the Labour Court was given on 30. 8. 1979 which was published under section 6 (3) of the Act on 21. 11. 1979 and became in forcible on expiry of thirty days there from under section 6-A of the Act, i. e. on 21. 12. 1979. Though the operation of the award was stayed in the writ petition filed by the employers but the same was also dismissed on 17. 12. 1985. The application for launching prosecution was filed by respondent No. 4 before the District state sometime in the year 1991, and complaint has been rued against the petitioners on 31. 1. 1992. The respondent. No. 4 had received theenlire amount due under the award on 21. 4. 1987. No explanation at all has been given-as to why the prosecution has been launched after such inordinate delay. It is a well settled principle of criminal law that prosecution should not be launched after lapse of long period, specially where the sentence which can be awarded for the offence is not severe. The maximum sentence which can be imposed under section 14a of the Act is imprisonment for six months. I should not be understood to be laying down that the prosecution is barred on account of delay but it is relevant circumstance which has to be taken into consideration. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the complaint filed against the petitioner is absolutely vague and no details have been given therein. A perusal of the complaint would show that the only allegation made therein is that the employers have not given seniority and the benefit of the award and that they had not complied the same in full measure. It has not been stated as to in what respect the award has not been complied with. The complaint under section 14a of the Act should give the necessary details namely as to in what manner and in what respect the award of the Labour Court has not been complied with. ( 10 ) HAVING given my anxious consideration to the entire matter, I am of the opinion that it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed breach of the terms of the award of the Labour Court. In these circumstances, their prosecution is nothing else but a clear abuse of the process of court. Accordingly the petition is allowed. ( 10 ) HAVING given my anxious consideration to the entire matter, I am of the opinion that it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed breach of the terms of the award of the Labour Court. In these circumstances, their prosecution is nothing else but a clear abuse of the process of court. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The proceedings of criminal Case No. 332 of 1992 instituted against the petitioners in the court of C. J. M. Jhansi are hereby quashed. Petition allowed. .