ORDER : Heard Mr. Kaustav Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned A.P.P for the State as well as Mr. Binod Singh, learned S.C. (L&C) appearing for the respondent no. 2. 2. In this application petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with I.D. Case No. 107 of 2000 including the order dated 24th March, 2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder cognizance for an offence punishable under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been taken. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint case was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 in which it was alleged that the award dated 29.06.1995 in Reference Case No. 35 of 1987 was not implemented by the management and in such circumstances the accused persons named in the complaint petition were to be prosecuted in terms of Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint petition cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad on 24th March, 2000. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the award dated 29.06.1995 was terminated by the General Manager vide letter dated 20/27.02.1998 addressed to the Assistant Secretary, of the Union with a copy to the Regional Labour Commissioner as well as Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad. Learned counsel further submits that since the award itself was terminated on account of non-joining of the workman concerned Mahabir Bhuiyan on the date of filing his complaint petition there was virtually no award in existence for its implementation. In such circumstances, Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act could not have been made applicable against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners also refers to Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act and has also submitted that notwithstanding the expiry of the period mentioned in Sub-Section 3 of Section 19 the award shall continue to be binding upon the parties until a period of two months has lapsed from the date of notice given to the other party. It has been submitted that since the notice was given in the year 1998 and the complaint case having been filed on 24th March, 2000, there was no cause either for the opposite party no. It has been submitted that since the notice was given in the year 1998 and the complaint case having been filed on 24th March, 2000, there was no cause either for the opposite party no. 2 to file a complaint case and for that matter by the learned court below for taking cognizance vide order dated 24th March, 2000. 4. Mr. Binod Singh, learned S.C. (L&C) for the O.P. No.2 has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners and has stated that the award which was passed in favour of the workman Mahabir Bhuiyan was never implemented by the Management. It has been submitted that such non-implementation definitely invites the consequences attached thereby initiating a proceeding under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act and in such circumstances therefore this application is liable to be dismissed. 5. The award was passed in favour of the workman Mahabir Bhuiyan on 29.06.1995 as it appears from the letter addressed by the Management to the Assistant Secretary of the Union. Since, Mahabir Bhuiyan had never approached the Management for resuming his duty and since the award has become infructuous, the Management had no alternative than to terminate the award. The intention of the Management to terminate the award dated 20/27th February, 1998 was never noticed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad either in the notice dated 21.02.2000 or in the complaint petition filed on 24th March, 2000. Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, deals with the period of operation of settlement and awards. Sub-Section 3 states that an award under this provisions shall remain in operation for a period of one year from the date on which the award becomes enforceable. Section 17A deals with the commencement of the award which becomes enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication. Sub-Section 6 of 19 reveals that notwithstanding the expiry of the period of operation under Section 3 of 19 the award shall continue to be binding on the parties until a period of 2 months had lapsed from the date on which notice has given by any party bound by the award to the other party intimating his intention to terminate the award. 6. As it appears from the records of the case the award was passed on 29.06.1995 and the same was published in the Gazette for its implementation on 06.07.1995. 6. As it appears from the records of the case the award was passed on 29.06.1995 and the same was published in the Gazette for its implementation on 06.07.1995. Subsequent thereto the notice of termination was issued on 20/27th February, 1998 and the complaint was filed on 24th March, 2000. The entire sequence of the events as has been depicted above would go to show that on the date when the complaint was filed the award dated 29.06.1995 was not enforceable so as to invite prosecution under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. In such circumstances therefore the continuation of the criminal proceedings under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as against the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of the Court and thus having found merit in this application, the same is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings in connection with I.D. Case No. 107 of 2000 including the order dated 24th March, 2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, is hereby, quashed.