B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.

This criminal original petition is to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 1194 of 2000 pending on the file of the judicial Magistrate, Palani.

This criminal original petition has arisen in this way :

One K. Subramanian, who was employed under the first petitioner, was dismissed from service, regarding which he raised a dispute in I.D. No. 104 of 1985. The Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Madurai, passed an award in favour of Subramanian on 27 October 1988 directing his continuation in service with back-wages and other benefits. Aggrieved by that order, the first petitioner herein preferred writ petition in Writ Petition No. 477 of 1989. The writ petition was finally dismissed on 17 February 1998. Thereafterwards, the first petitioner preferred a writ appeal in Writ Appeal No. 966 of 2000, which is yet to be admitted. Meanwhile, the respondent herein launched prosecution against the petitioners on the ground that the award has not been implemented and therefore, the petitioners are punishable under S. 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the petitioners, by virtue of provision of S. 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the award ought to have been enforced within one year and after one year, the award becomes unenforceable and therefore, the prosecution launched after one year is barred by limitation.

Heard both the sides. It is not in dispute that Subramanian was dismissed from service and the learned Labour Court passed an award in his favour. The portion to be implemented in the award passed by the learned Labour Court runs as under :

"In the result, an award is passed declaring the non-employment of the petitioner is not justified and that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, back-wages and attendant benefits. No costs."

The award has been passed on 27 October 1988. As per the provision of S. 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the award is enforceable within one year from thirty days after the date of publication in Official Gazette. Subsequent to the publication, the first petitioner has preferred Writ Petition No. 477 of 1989 questioning the award and finality has reached in that writ petition on 17 February 1998. Therefore, the award becomes enforceable within thirty days after the final award, i.e., on 19 February 1998. The award was passed on 27 October 1988 and the same was published in the Gazette on 21 December 1988. Therefore, it becomes enforceable on 21 January 1989, after expiry of thirty days from the date of publication. By virtue of institution of writ petition and finality of the writ petition has arrived at on 17 February 1998. It can be said that the award would become enforceable on 17 February 1999. The award becomes enforceable after thirty days, i.e., on 18 or 19 February 1999. The complaint has been filed on 13 October 1999, after expiry of the period of one year. The question is whether the prosecution is barred

Section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure recites as under :

"(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year,"

The punishment provided under S. 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act is, imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months. Therefore, the prosecution has to be launched within one year from the date of cause of action.

After expiry of thirty days, whether the award could be enforced The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the non-employment of award is a continuing offence and it does not attract any specific period of limitation to launch the prosecution. Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act recites as under :

"29. Penalty for breach of settlement or award - Any person who commits a breach of any term of any settlement or award, which is binding on him under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both, and where the breach is a continuing one, with a further fine which may extend to two hundred rupees for every day during which the breach continues after the conviction for the first and the Court trying the offence, if it fines the offender, may direct that the whole or any part of the fine realised from him shall be paid, by way of compensation, to any person who, in its opinion, has been injured by such breach."

In an identical circumstance in Cinema Workers Union v. Gopal Naidu 1988 (1) LLN 603], a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court has held as under, in para 14, at page 609 :

"So long as an award ordering the reinstatement of a workman with back-wages is not complied with, the non-compliance would be an offence every moment as long as it has not been given effect to. Therefore, non-compliance with such an award would be a continuous offence from day to day and not an offence committed once and for all. The compliance with the award at a later stage would not wipe out the original offence of non-compliance within time."

Similarly arguments were advanced before the learned Single Judge that the offence in question was a continuing offence and it was not an offence committed once for all. That has been considered. But reference to S. 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act would make it clear that the award was to remain in operation for a period of one year and there afterwards, it will cease to have force.

Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act recites as under :

"19. Period of operation of settlements and awards. - (1) A settlement shall come into operation on such date as is agreed upon by the parties to the dispute, and if no date is agreed upon, on the date on which the memorandum of the settlement is signed by the parties to the dispute.

(2) Such settlement shall be binding for such period as is agreed upon by the parties, and if no such period is agreed upon, for a period of six months from the date on which the memorandum of settlement is signed by the parties to the dispute, and shall continue to be binding on the parties after the expiry of the period aforesaid, until the expiry of two months from the date on which a notice in writing of an intention to terminate the settlement is given by one of the parties to the other party or parties to the settlement.

(3) An award shall, subject to the provisions of this section, remain in operation for a period of one year from the date on which the award becomes enforceable under S. 17A :

Provided that the appropriate Government may reduce the said period and fix such period as it thinks fit :

Provided further that the appropriate Government may, before the expiry of the said period, extend the period of operation by any period not exceeding one year at a time as it thinks fit, so, however, that the total period of operation of any award does not exceed three years from the date on which it came into operation.

(4) Where the appropriate Government, whether of its own motion or on the application of any party bound by the award, considers that since the award was made, there has been a material change in the circumstances on which it was based, the appropriate Government may refer the award or of a part of it to a Labour Court, if the award was that of a Labour Court or to a Tribunal, if the award was that of a Tribunal or a National Tribunal for decision whether the period of operation should not, by reason of such change, be shortened and the decision of Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, on such reference shall be final.(5) Nothing contained in Sub-sec. (3) shall apply to any award which by its nature, terms or other circumstances does not impose, after it has been given effect to, any continuing obligation on the parties bound by the award.

(6) Notwithstanding the expiry of the period of operation under Sub-sec. (3), the award shall continue to be binding on the parties until a period of two months has elapsed from the date on which notice is given by any party bound by the award to the other party or parties intimating its intention to terminate the award.

(7) No notice given under Sub-sec. (6) shall have effect, unless it is given by a party representing the majority of persons bound by the settlement or award, as the case may be."

Of course, if no period is fixed, then it would appear that non-enforcement of the award would be a continuing offence. But, by virtue of the provisions of S. 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act, even regarding a continuing offence, if the statute fixes a period of limitation for enforceability of the award, then continuency would cease on the date when the award becomes unenforceable. A clear reading of S. 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act would go to show that the award being a continuing offence has to be enforced within one year. If it is not enforced, within one year, a prosecution would lie and in spite of conviction, the offender continues to breach the award, then it would be a continuing question attracting the matter to the provisions of S. 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. If no prosecution is instituted within one year, it cannot be said that the award would still be enforceable. I am in entire agreement with the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in 1988 (1) LLN 603, held that the prosecution has not been launched within one year from the date of enforceability of the award and the instant prosecution is barred by limitation. Therefore, this criminal original petition is allowed. The further proceedings in S.T.C. No. 1194 of 2000 is quashed. Consequently, Cri.M.P. Nos. 3537 and 3538 of 2000 are closed as unnecessary.