Judgment :- Petitioner has called in question an order passed by 1st respondent dated 10th September 2004 produced at Annexure-H. 2. Second respondent - Union had made an application on 17.4.2001 to the first respondent interalia seeking permission to prosecute the petitioner on the ground of violation of Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act(in short referred to as ‘the Act’). In this regard, the State Government had called for a report form the Labour Commissioner and the Labour Commissioner by letter dated 7.8.2001 had submitted his report. Government held an enquiry and considering the respective contentions observed that the petitioner – management has violated the provisions of Section 25-M and in view of the power conferred under Section 34 read with Section 25-Q of the Act granted permission by the impugned order. 3. Sri.Nagabhushana, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, order of the first respondent produced at Annexure-H is per se illegal and contrary to Section 25-M of the Act. He submitted that, before invoking the power under Section 34, the Union must prove the violation of Section 25-M of the Act. In this regard, he submitted that, Section 25-M deals with ‘prohibition of lay-off and Section 25-M sub-section (7) confers power with State Government either on its own motion or on the application made by employer or workman to review its order granting or refusing to grant permission under sub-section (4) of Section 25-M and in this regard, he referred to Annexure-E, an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in I.D.No.80/2001 dated 15th June 2002 and submitted that, the second respondent – Union had raised a dispute, as to whether the lay-off declared by the petitioner – management w.e.f. 16.4.2001 is justified or not and the said dispute has been dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal. He submitted that, when the issue as to whether the lay-off is justified or not was the subject matter of adjudication and in view of the dismissal of the award, power is not conferred on the State Government to invoke the provisions of Section 34 on the allegation that there is violation of Section 25-M of the Act. He submitted that, when the issue as to whether the lay-off is justified or not was the subject matter of adjudication and in view of the dismissal of the award, power is not conferred on the State Government to invoke the provisions of Section 34 on the allegation that there is violation of Section 25-M of the Act. He further submitted that, when an issue is referred by the State Government itself by its order dated 27.7.2001 under Section 10 sub-section(1) clause (b) of the Act for adjudication, unless the issue is adjudicated, it cannot be held that there is an illegal lay-off declared by the management. 4. Alternatively, he also submitted that, management and the members of the union have entered into a settlement under Section 18 sub-section (1) on 2nd April 2008 and in view of the settlement, dispute is not maintainable. All the claims having been settled, the question of granting permission by the State Government does not arise. He further submitted that, the union admittedly having approached the Industrial Tribunal for whatever reason and award having been passed, is binding both on the management as well as the union, the union now cannot turn around and allege the violation of Section 25-M of the Act. 5. Per contra, Sri.C.S. Mohan, President of the union in person submitted that, the issue as to whether there is violation of provisions of Section 25-M or not, is no more available to contend, as the said issue has already been decided by this Court in W.P.No.33650/2001. He referred to Annexure-R11 and pointed out that the petitioner – management had filed a writ petition challenging the recovery certificate issued by the Labour Commissioner to recover a amount of Rs.51,56,746/- and management had raised a contention that there is no lay-off and it is not liable to pay the said amount. This Court considered the said issue and has held that, there is violation of Section 25M of the Act and it is only in view of the violation of the provisions of Section 25-M, the Labour Commissioner exercising his power under Chapter V-B has issued a recovery certificate. Further, he also submitted that, as against the said order, a writ appeal was filed before this Court and the writ appeal also came to be dismissed interalia subject to payment. 6. Further, he also submitted that, as against the said order, a writ appeal was filed before this Court and the writ appeal also came to be dismissed interalia subject to payment. 6. As regard to the settlement, the President of the respondent No.2 –Union submitted that, the President of the union has not signed the settlement. The settlement is under Section 18 sub-section (1), it may only bind those parties, who have signed the settlement. However, he submitted that, even when there is violation of Section 25-M and when the matter was pending before the Government, even if the settlement is arrived, settlement is illegal and not binding on the workman. In this regard, he relied on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2005 SC 1555 in the matter of M/S.Oswal Agro Furane Ltd & Another Vs- Oswal Agro Furane Workers Union And Others and submitted that, settlement arrived at between employer and the workman in the course of conciliation proceedings within the meaning of Section 2 clause (p) read with Section 18 sub-section (3) would not prevail over the statutory requirements under Section 25-N and 25-O of the Act and submitted that, settlement will not override the statutory requirement and when an offence is committed in terms of section 25-Q, the settlement will not take away the penalty or the punishment merely because the management has subsequently settled the matter. He also submitted that, Government while considering the case for grant of permission has elaborately considered all the relevant aspects and it is only after considering the matter, impugned order has been passed. He further submitted that, dismissal of dispute will not make any change, insofar as claim of the union is concerned. He submitted that, as far as the dispute is concerned, it was dismissed on account of default, that too, in view of the order passed by this Court in writ petition. 7. Much water has flown before the impugned order at Annexure-H is passed by the respondent No.1 Initially the management had disputed the application of the provisions of Section 25-N of the Act on the ground that, the industry is only a seasonal industry. In this regard, this Court had directed the State Government to decide as to whether the industry is seasonal one or not and the Government by its order dated 19.2.1986 held that it is not a seasonal industry. In this regard, this Court had directed the State Government to decide as to whether the industry is seasonal one or not and the Government by its order dated 19.2.1986 held that it is not a seasonal industry. Thereafter, this Court had directed the management to pay full wages for the period of lay-off. In the meanwhile, union had entered into a settlement with the management for payment of 85% of the lay-off wages and in this regard, for non-payment of the award, a recovery certificate was issued, when the amount was not paid, an application was filed under Section 33-C sub-section (1) of the Act and in pursuance of the same, the Labour Commissioner had issued a recovery certificate and the said recovery certificate was upheld by this Court in W.P.No.33650/2001. Thereafter, an appeal was filed by the management said appeal also came to be dismissed. 8. In the writ petition filed by the management in W.P.No.33650/2001, the management had specifically raised several grounds including the ground as to whether (i) the first petitioner had violated the provisions of Section 25-M or not, (ii) whether there is illegal lay-off or not. The management’s only contention was that, since it is a seasonal industry, it is not liable to pay the lay-off compensation. Learned Single Judge at para-5 of the order has observed as under: 5. Under Section 25-M of the Act, the petitioner was required to obtain prior permission of the Government to lay off its employees. Admittedly, such permission was not obtained by the petitioner. Therefore, there is violation of Section 25-M of the Act. Since it is held that petitioner is not seasonal in character, the contention that Section 25-M of the Act is not attracted to the case, does not hold water and the same stands rejected. Consequently, the petitioner is liable to pay lay-off compensation and the impugned recovery certificate is therefore legal and valid.” 9. It is not in dispute that, the members of the union became entitled for lay-off compensation. This Court at the instance of the petitioner – management had decided the issue, as to whether there is violation of Section 25-M or not and has held that the lay-off is illegal and the petitioner is liable to pay the compensation. It is only thereafter, the dispute raised by the union was dismissed for default. This Court at the instance of the petitioner – management had decided the issue, as to whether there is violation of Section 25-M or not and has held that the lay-off is illegal and the petitioner is liable to pay the compensation. It is only thereafter, the dispute raised by the union was dismissed for default. When this Court has already decided the issue and has become final, no further adjudication is warranted to decide as to whether there is violation of Section 25-M or not. Now the question is, what follows if there is violation of Section 25-M of the Act? 10. If an employer contravenes the provisions of Section 25-M or Section 25-N, under Section 25-Q of the Act, he would be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one month or with fine, which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. In this regard, the Government is conferred with the power to file a complaint for taking cognizance of offence punishable under the Act. Second respondent – union in the light of the findings that there is a violation of Section 25-M and also in the light of the fact that, the recovery certificate has been issued for recovery, it had approached the Government seeking for prosecution. In the impugned order, the State Government has considered the orders passed by this Court as well as the relevant contentions raised by the petitioner and considering the same, found that the violation of Section 25M is proved and it also considered that, it amounts to an offence within the meaning of Section 25-Q and in exercise of power under Section 34 has granted permission to prosecute. 11. As far as settlement is concerned, it is not in dispute that the settlement is under Section 18 sub-section (1) of the Act, and it binds only those parties, who have entered into the settlement. Nevertheless, the settlement by itself will not take away the statutory effect, particularly, the provisions, which are penal in nature and no settlement would have any effect on the compliance of the statutory requirement. The Apex Court while considering the settlement in case of violation of Section 25-O and Section 25-N has observed that, the settlement will not prevail over the statutory requirement and the said principle squarely applies even in this case also. The Apex Court while considering the settlement in case of violation of Section 25-O and Section 25-N has observed that, the settlement will not prevail over the statutory requirement and the said principle squarely applies even in this case also. I find that, when the issue of violation of Section 25-M is decided and confirmed by this Court and on undisputed facts, Government has granted permission, no error could be found in the said impugned It is not the case of the management that the said finding is set aside in the appeal or the judgment is modified. order. Hence, the Writ Petition fails and same is dismissed.