Judgment The petitioner in W.P.No.27823 of 2005 was Dosai Master. The petitioner in W.P.No.14373 of 2005 is canteen employee. The fifth respondent is a Cooperative Sugar Mills. The petitioners and other canteen workers raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer seeking for absorption of their services as employees of the main factory. The Labour court to which the dispute was referred by its award in I.D.No.72 of 1984 dated 210. 1989 granted relief to the workmen. The Labour Court granted direction to the management to fix their basic pay and other benefits. 2. The management challenged the said award before this Court which was also rejected by this Court. Subsequent to the award, it was found that 16 workers in the canteen have accepted the order dated 210. 2002 fixing their wages and service conditions and they have entered into a settlement under Section 18(1) of the I.D. Act . 3. In so far as the petitioners are concerned, they were also given similar orders. But however after accepting the order, they worked for few days and remained absent continuously . After conducting an enquiry, the petitioners were dismissed from service by orders dated 110. 2003 and 12.02.2000 respectively. The petitioners have now come forward with the present writ petitions seeking for prosecution of the Management under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act for violating the terms of the award. 4. It is stated by the petitioners that the union of which they are members made a representation dated 23.01.2002 to the Deputy Secretary to Govt. The Deputy Secretary by his letter dated 19.03.2002 directed the Commissioner of Sugars that nonimplementation of the award will result in prosecution under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore he was directed to give a suitable direction to the Mill for implementing the award. Subsequently the matter was dealt with by the Labour Officer who recorded that the Management has been dragging the talk for more than six months and if any complaint is made under Section 29 of the I.D. Act, then prosecution will have to be made within a period of one year. He therefore posted the matter for further talks. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have come forward to file the present writ petitions. 5. He therefore posted the matter for further talks. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have come forward to file the present writ petitions. 5. In both the writ petitions, counter affidavits were filed by the fifth respondent, in which it was stated that since they have already implemented the award and the question of violation of the award did not arise. In so far as the petitioners were concerned, they had already been dismissed. The other workers have signed the settlement under Section 18(1) of the I.D. Act replacing the award. 6. The respondents 1 to 3 have not filed any counter affidavit. However, it must be noted that the prosecution of an employer under section 29 of the Act is possible only if the Govt. grants a sanction under Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act. In such a prosecution, limitation prescribed under Cr.P.C. will apply. 7. In view of the above, it must be recorded that the subject matter of the writ petitions has become infructuous both on the ground of subsequent 18(1) settlement with the other workers and that in respect of the petitioners are concerned, they were already been dismissed from service. Hence, it is not fit cases to entertain the writ petitions at this point of time. Thus, the writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs.