JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners are retired workmen of the erstwhile Lord Krishna Bank Ltd., later taken over by the erstwhile Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd. and now merged with the H.D.F.C Bank Ltd. After retirement, the petitioners approached the Central Government with a petition to initiate action under Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the “I.D Act”) or to authorise them to institute such a complaint. The Central Government declined the request stating that their complaint does not come under the purview of the authority of the Central Government and they are free to approach appropriate authority to claim dues from their employer. It is challenging this decision the petitioners approached this Court. 2. A memorandum of settlement between the management of 50 banks represented by the Indian Banks' Association and their workmen represented by the All Indian Banks' Employees' Association as well as other associations was entered into on 2/6/2005. This memorandum covers various issues raised and demanded by the union. One of the terms of the settlement was in respect of reckoning the pay for the purpose of pension. Clause 16 therein refers to “pension”. The petitioners after retirement raised a demand to calculate the pay in such a manner which they considered to be in accordance with the settlement. It appears that the said demand was not acceded. Thereafter, they approached the Central Government with a complaint stating that the bank, their former employer, committed breach of settlement. The Government of India, after hearing the petitioners and the bank took the view that the complaint does not come under the purview of their authority and the petitioners will have to work out their remedies in appropriate manner. 3. In this case much argument has been raised as to the scope of exercise of power by the Central Government under Section 34 of I.D Act. The learned counsel for the bank as well as the learned Central Government Counsel would argue that the petitioners being retired workmen ceased to become the workmen as defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D Act. They submit that the petitioners have no locus standi to approach the Central Government seeking relief for initiating any action under Section 34. They also submit that Section 34 can be understood only in the backdrop of Section 18 of the I.D Act. They submit that the petitioners have no locus standi to approach the Central Government seeking relief for initiating any action under Section 34. They also submit that Section 34 can be understood only in the backdrop of Section 18 of the I.D Act. They further submit that Section 18 only refers to the nature of relationship between employer and workman and not an employer with the former employee (retired employee). Therefore, the retired workmen cannot espouse any cause as referable under Section 18 much less for initiating an action under Section 34. 4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Central Government is having ample power to consider whether there is a breach of settlement and to initiate penal action under Section 34 of the I.D Act by filing a complaint either by the Government or by authorising any person. Thus, the question that arises for consideration is the scope and ambit of the power to be exercised by the Government under Section 34. Section 34 reads as follows: “34. Cognizance of offences.- (1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or of the abetment of any such offence, save on complaint made by or under the authority of the appropriate Government. (2) No Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class], shall try any offence punishable under this Act.” 5. In fact, Section 34 of the I.D Act only refers to the cognizance of offence by the Court. It can either be based on a complaint made by the Central Government or by the authority of the Central Government (appropriate Government). The question is whether the Central Government is bound to file a complaint or is having any legal obligation to make a complaint under Section 34 at the instance of retired Workmen or not. 6. Going by Section 34 of the I.D Act, it can be seen that the Central Government is vested with the discretion to make a complaint. It would truly depend upon the factual appraisal of the matter, objectively, by the Central Government. The facts disclosed before the Central Government if clearly would disclose that there is a breach of settlement, the Central Government may at its discretion initiate a complaint or authorise any person for filing such complaint. It would truly depend upon the factual appraisal of the matter, objectively, by the Central Government. The facts disclosed before the Central Government if clearly would disclose that there is a breach of settlement, the Central Government may at its discretion initiate a complaint or authorise any person for filing such complaint. The discretionary power provided as a safeguard to the Central Government under Section 34 is for the simple reason so as to avoid mischievous complaints being made before the criminal courts concerned alleging such breach of settlement. That is to say that, the Central Government has to apply its mind based on the facts whether there was breach of settlement or not. There is no mandate under law that such information should be provided to the Central Government only by the workman as referable under Section 2(s) of the I.D Act. Any person connected with such settlement, even a beneficiary, can approach the Central Government with such information to initiate action. No doubt, if any busybody or a person, totally unconnected with the settlement, approaches the Central Government, the Central Government could simply avoid consideration of such complaint. However, if a beneficiary of such settlement approaches the Government, that cannot be rejected at the threshold stating that such persons, who have approached the Central Government are not workmen as defined under Section 2(s). In fact, the Central Government is not enforcing any rights or benefits enured to such retired workmen through a complaint under Section 34, and it is only making efforts to restore the sanctity of settlement agreement as entered under Section 18. A settlement agreement entered under Section 18 would be binding on parties like any other settlement of disputes and, the Government is duty bound to ensure that sanctity of such settlement is restored in such manner by initiating penal action. 7. What are the circumstances under which the Central Government is bound to file a complaint is an incidental question. The breach of settlement and a dispute regarding breach of settlement are distinct in its purport for taking action by the Government. It is only in cases where there is patent breach of settlement, the Government need to consider filing of such complaint as referred under Section 34. The breach of settlement and a dispute regarding breach of settlement are distinct in its purport for taking action by the Government. It is only in cases where there is patent breach of settlement, the Government need to consider filing of such complaint as referred under Section 34. On the other hand, based on the materials placed before the Government, the Government is of the view that the dispute as to the breach is a matter to be thrashed out in appropriate forum, the Government can relegate the parties to approach the competent authority to thrash out such disputes through adjudication. The Government is also having necessary power under Section 36A to refer such question to the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal in case interpretation of any provision of a settlement arises. However, these are all matters for the Government or the appropriate Government to consider, based on facts. It is only in cases where the Government has formed an opinion that there is a breach of settlement, the Government can in its discretion, decide to initiate action under Section 34. If the Government forms an opinion that there is a dispute as to the breach of settlement, the Government need not necessarily initiate any action under Section 34. 8. Based on the impugned decision, it is not clear as to basis of the decision, necessarily, Government has to form an opinion as to whether it was a breach of settlement or it was only a dispute regarding the breach of settlement. It is for the Government to consider the same after appraising the facts. It is made clear that there is no provision under law that such information should be given only by the Workman, who would satisfy the definition of ‘workman’ under the I.D Act. A retired workman or a beneficiary under the settlement also can provide such information to the Central Government though such person cannot compel the Central Government to initiate action. The discretion has to be exercised in appropriate manner as referred as above. In conclusion, I am of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside paving way for reconsideration. The discretion has to be exercised in appropriate manner as referred as above. In conclusion, I am of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside paving way for reconsideration. The Central Government based on the materials placed before this Court and after hearing the objections of the fourth respondent-bank shall take appropriate decision without any delay within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.