Judgment P. Jyothimani, J. The unsuccessful petitioner before the learned Single Judge has filed the present writ appeal. The learned Single Judge, in the order dated 11. 2006 made in W.P.No.33547 of 2006, has dismissed the writ petition, on the basis that the social welfare legislation should be strictly implemented and also taking note of the fact that simply because in Schedule II of the impugned sanction order, the respondents have failed to state about the previous conviction, that, by itself, cannot be a ground to conclude that there is nonapplication of mind by the respondents, before passing the sanction order. 2. Under Section 14-AC of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, for a trial Court to take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act, a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made with the previous sanction of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or such other officer as may be authorised by the Central Government, by notification, is required. Section 14-AC of the Act reads as under: "14-AC. Cognizance and trial of offences.- (1) No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, the Scheme or, the Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme, except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made with the previous sanction of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or such other officer as may be authorised by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, in this behalf, by an Inspector appointed under section 13. (2) No court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act or the Scheme or, the Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme." 3. The point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that a perusal of the impugned sanction order would disclose non application of mind on the part of the respondents, especially in the circumstances that in the preamble above Schedule-II, the authority has chosen to state that the appellant was convicted on an earlier occasion for similar failure and in Schedule-II in the column provided to state about the previous convictions, it is stated as NIL. 4. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, the mere technicality or non mentioning of anything in Schedule-II, especially in the circumstances that in the preamble it is stated that the appellant was involved in previous default, does not, by itself, amount to non application of mind while passing the sanction order. 5. It is admitted across the Bar that, pursuant to the sanction order, the Criminal Court has proceeded with the trial and in fact, the examination of witnesses has been completed and the matter is at the stage of arguments and it is at this stage the writ petition was filed. 6. Even assuming that the sanction order has not been passed by proper application of mind, it is always open to the appellant to raise the same before the trial Court. 7. As elicited by the learned Single Judge, the Supreme Court in Peoples Union for Democratic Rights and Others v. Union of India and Others, [1982] 3 SCC 235, in respect of the welfare legislation, has held as under: ".... We do not propose to go into the details of these prosecutions launched against the contractors but we are shocked to find that in cases of violations of labour laws enacted for the benefit of workmen, the Magistrates have been imposing only small fines of Rs.200 thereabouts. The Magistrates seem to view the violations of labour laws with great indifference and unconcern as if they are trifling offences undeserving of judicial severity. They seem to overlook the fact that labour laws are enacted for improving the conditions of workers and the employers cannot be allowed to buy of immunity against violations of labour laws by paying a paltry fine which they would not mind paying, because by violating the labour laws they would be making profit which would far exceed the amount of the fine. If violations of labour laws are going to be punished only by meagre fines, it would be impossible to ensure observance of the labour laws and the labour laws would be reduced to nullity. They would remain merely paper tigers without any teeth or claws. If violations of labour laws are going to be punished only by meagre fines, it would be impossible to ensure observance of the labour laws and the labour laws would be reduced to nullity. They would remain merely paper tigers without any teeth or claws. We would like to impress upon the Magistrates and Judges in the country that violations of labour laws must be viewed with strictness and whenever any violations of labour laws are established before them they should punish the errant employees by imposing adequate punishment." 8. In view of the above, finding no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal is dismissed, of course with liberty to the appellant to raise the point regarding the validity or otherwise of the sanction order before the trial Court. No costs. M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed.