R. K. PATRA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Shri Mishra for the petitioner. There is no appearance on behalf of opposite parties despite valid service of notice on them. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to quash the entire proceeding initiated against him in 2 (e) C. C. No. 15 of 1994 pending on the file of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patnagarh. Prosecution report was filed by the District Labour Officer, Bolangir (opposite party No. 1) against the petitioner, who is the Secretary of the District. Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Bolangir and opposite party No. 2 who is the Secretary of the Leramba Service Co-operative Society on the allegation that they committed an offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act' ). ( 3 ) ON 20-8-1994 the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Section 29 of the Act and directed issue of summons to the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 for their appearance. The petitioner filed a petition before the learned Magistrate praying for reconsideration of the order dated 20-9-1994 by which he took cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner. The learned Magistrate rejected the said petition saying that he has no such power. It has been held by the Supreme Court in M. M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, AIR 1992 SC 2206 : (1992 Cri LJ 3779), that the order issuing processes being interim one, can be varied or recalled on reconsideration of the complaint if it is pleaded by the accused that the processes issued against him should not have been issued. In view of the aforesaid, the learned Magistrate acted illegally in refusing to exercise the power vested in him in law. The grievance of the petitioner, however, is something serious. According to Shri Mishra, if any offence under Section 29 of the Act was committed, it is not the petitioner but opposite party No. 2. In this connection he draws my attention to the award of the Labour Court, Sambalpur dated 29-8-1987 rendered in I. S. Case No. 26 of 1986. Perusal of the said award indicates that the Labour Court declared termination of the service of the workman, A. C. Barik made by the management of Larambe Service Co-operative Society, opposite party No. 2 with effect from 20-12-1982 as illegal. Perusal of the said award indicates that the Labour Court declared termination of the service of the workman, A. C. Barik made by the management of Larambe Service Co-operative Society, opposite party No. 2 with effect from 20-12-1982 as illegal. Section 29 of the Act provides that any person who commits a breach of any term of settlement or award which is binding on him under the Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment specified therein. As is evident, the award is binding on the management of Larambe Service Co-operative Society. Its action in terminating the service of the concerned workman having been held to be illegal by the Labour Court, it has to take the concerned workman back to service and non-implementation of the award amounts to breach thereof which is punishable under Section 29 of the Act. It is true that the petitioner was opposite party No. 1 before the Labour Court but nothing having been decided against him, there is no commission of offence by him under Section 29 of the Act. The order, directing issue of summons to the petitioner therefrom cannot be sustained in law and has to be set aside. ( 4 ) IN the result, the order dated 20-8-1994 by which the learned Magistrate directed issue of summons to the petitioner and the subsequent proceedings so far as the petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed. The Criminal Misc. Case is allowed. Application allowed. .