Judgment D. S. Dhaliwal, J. 1. M/s. Videocon international Ltd. , Petitioner No.1, a company registered under the Companies Act and its Area Manager, D. Prasad-petitioner No.2 have filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 17-8-1994 passed by the chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, whereby he took cognizance of offence under Sec.29 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and for quashing of the whole criminal proceedings resting thereon in case No.843 (M) 94 pending in the court - of Judicial Magistrate, First class, Patna. 2. It appears that services of Dilip kumar Dutta, Respondent No.3 and two other employees of the Company, namely, Santosh Kumar Sinha and Vijay kumar b were terminated on the ground that their appointments were illegal. The three employees raised an Industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court vide award (An-nexure-3) dated 18-9-1993 held that termination of service of the aforesaid three workmen including Respondent no.3 were for reasonable cause and on cogent grounds. However the termination of Dilip Kumar Dutta, Respondent no.3 was ruled as invalid due to non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. This Respondent who was working as Peon and getting his salary Rs.650a per month on the date of termination was ordered to be reinstated with full back wages, but he was not held entitled to any other consequential relief as his appointment was found to be illegal. Labour Superintendent filed criminal complaint dated 25-7-1994 (Annexure-1) in the Court of chief Judicial Magistrate against the petitioners under Sec.29 of the Act alleging therein that the petitioners failed to implement the award as contained in annexure-3, although-it had become binding and as such they were liable to be punished for an offence under Sec.29 of the Act. 3. Acting on the complaint, learned chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sec.29 of the Act against the petitioners. 4. 1 have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records with their assistance. 5. 3. Acting on the complaint, learned chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sec.29 of the Act against the petitioners. 4. 1 have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records with their assistance. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that complaint on the basis of which cognizance has been taken is dated 25-7-1994, and that award had been fully implemented as the entire salary due to Respondent no.3 for the period from 14-6-1990 to 15-4-1994 had been remitted to him by demand draft. Counsel maintained that in pursuance of the award Respondent no.3 was reinstated and as he did not join the duty his services were terminated with effect from 15-4-1994 and entire dues till that day has been paid to him. Therefore, according to the Counsel filing of complaint and continuance of the criminal prosecution of the petitioners is not justified and as such deserves to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 submits that although the aforesaid amount has been received by Respondent No.3, but he had received the same under protest as he was not allowed to join his duty and reinstated in terms of the award and as such criminal prosecution has been rightly" initiated against the petitioners. Learned Counsel further emphasised that it is a dis puted fact as to whether Respondent no.3 did not come to join his duty or that he was not allowed to join his duty as contended by him, therefore, the relief as claimed by the petitioners cannot be granted to them in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions, but find myself unable to agree with the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3. The Presiding officer, Labour Court through the award has given a firm finding that termination of the services of Respondent no.3 and two other workmen by the petitioners was for a reasonable cause and on cogent grounds. Respondent no.3 was held entitled to the back wages and reinstatement for the reason that while terminating services the provisions of Sec.25-F of the Act were not complied with by the petitioners. Respondent no.3 was held entitled to the back wages and reinstatement for the reason that while terminating services the provisions of Sec.25-F of the Act were not complied with by the petitioners. The case of the petitioners is that after pronouncement of the award Respondent No.3 failed to report on duty, and that he has been raising frivolous pleas against the management for not allowing him to report for duty. The petitioners then paid full wages to respondent No.3 from the date of his initial termination i. e.14-6-1990 upto 15-4-1994 amounting to Rs.32,750/-. His services were again terminated with effect from 15-4-1994 on the ground that he is no longer required. The said order of termination has not been challenged by Respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 has received a substantial sum of Rs.32,7507- by way of back wages. His initial appointment was found to be illegal and as such termination was held to be for valid ground by the Labour Court. No doubt Respondent No.3 alleges that he has not been allowed to join his duty, but the fact remains that he has received his entire back wages and his services now stand terminated. 8. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, it will not be in the interest of justice, if the prosecution of the petitioners is allowed to continue. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The order taking cognizance as well as the prosecution of the petitioners resting thereon is quashed. Petition Allowed.