did not turn up. Since the de facto complainant was not joining the duty, the accused company addressed letters dated 22.10.2012 and 19.11.2012 to vacate the quarters and on that the de facto complainant issued legal notice, dated 30.01.2013, and the accused company cause issued reply notice, dated 08.02.2013, refuted all claims. The de facto complainant made letters and legal notice through advocate, in all times it was informed that to join duties at the earliest, but he did not turn up. It is further contended that the de facto complainant neither joined in duty nor vacated the quarters allotted to him and that he filed E.P.No.9 of 2014 in I.D.No.59 of 1999 after lapse of 14 years, which is not maintainable and that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is illegal and untenable and Section 34(1) of the Act provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act and the present complaint under Section 29 of the Act against the accused company is untenable and abuse of process of law and there was no cause of action arose for filing the present complaint. It is further contended that the accused company implemented the award by informing the de facto complainant to report to duty, vide letter, dated 28.06.2011, and also paid the difference pay and costs of the award and the present complaint is also in contravention of Section 32 of the Act and also the complaint itself is barred by limitation. It is contended that as per Section 468 Cr.P.C., no Court shall take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of limitation and the punishment prescribed under Section
