Relevant facts for the purpose of these appeals are thus.
The award passed by the Labour Court became final.
The appellant company challenged the award before the High Court of Karnataka by filing writ petition, which was later dismissed.
Services of three workmen, who were the employees of the first appellant company were terminated by the appellant companypany and those workmen raised an industrial dispute.
Thereupon, the second respondent Workers Union sought sanction of the Government for prosecution of the appellants.
That application was rejected by the High Court with the observation that the remedy under Section 29 or Section 33C of the Act was available to the workmen.
Initially, the workmen filed an application for companytempt of companyrt before the High Court.
The Labour Commissioner exercising power under Section 34 of the Act gave sanction to the Workers Union to launch proceedings against the management of the first appellant.
As pointed out earlier, the two companyrts have found that the order passed by the Labour Commissioner is number vitiated by any illegality.
By judgment dated 26.3.1998 the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the order and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was subsequently companyfirmed by the Division Bench.
The appellants challenged the order passed under Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for short, the Act whereby the first respondent gave sanction for prosecuting the appellants for alleged violation of the provisions companytained in the Act.
G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. Leave granted.
Judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court is challenged in these appeals.
An award was passed in favour of the workmen and the appellant company was directed to reinstate them with companytinuity of service and full back wages.
The first appellant is a public limited companypany and appellants 2 5 are Directors thereof.
