JUDGMENT 1. - Grievance made by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the award passed by the Labour Court Jodhpur on April 30, 1991 in Case No. 70 of 1989 directing his reinstatement with full back wages, has not been implemented by the Municipal Council so far. 2. In the writ petition the petitioner has made following prayers:- "(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent may be directed to make compliance of the award Ann.1 by taking the petitioner on duty and to make payment of back wages. (b) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (c) Costs be allowed to the petitioner." 3. The petitioner has stated that against the award dated April 30, 1991 Municipal Council, Jodhpur filed Writ Petition No. 564/92. On April 20, 1992 this Court passed an order in accordance with the provisions of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for payment of salary to the petitioner. Subsequently that writ petition was dismissed by the Court on January 5, 1993 on account of default of the petitioner to prosecute it. Shri Vijay Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has made a statement at Bar that till this date no order for restoration of the said writ petition has been passed by this Court. 4. Case of the petitioner is that even though award was made by the Labour Court as early as on April 30, 1991 and no proceeding is pending as on date before this Court involving a challenge to the said award, yet the functionaries of the Municipal Council have neither reinstated the petitioner in service nor have they paid back wages to him. Shri Mehta, learned counsel argued that by non compliance of the award the respondents have indirectly deprived the petitioner of his right to livelihood and thus they have violated his fundamental right to life as envisaged by Article 21, of the Constitution of India. Shri Mehta further argued that Municipal Council, Jodhpur is an instrumentality of the State. Shri Mehta, learned counsel argued that by non compliance of the award the respondents have indirectly deprived the petitioner of his right to livelihood and thus they have violated his fundamental right to life as envisaged by Article 21, of the Constitution of India. Shri Mehta further argued that Municipal Council, Jodhpur is an instrumentality of the State. It, therefore, falls within the expression of the term 'other authorities' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and being an instrumentality of the State, Municipal Council, Jodhpur is bound to act in consonance with the constitutional injunctions. He further submitted that arrears of back wages payable to the petitioner in terms of the award constitute his property. His property is constitutionally protected by virtue of Article 300A and the petitioner can be deprived of this right only in accordance with the procedure established by law. 5. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submission of Shri Mehta, I am of the view that the Municipal Council, Jodhpur and its functionaries have acted in a most arbitrary manner. They have shown scant regard to the provisions of law. Once an award is made by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, it becomes law and unless it is challenged before an appropriate forum, a party against whom the award is made is duty bound to give effect to the award. If award passed by the Labour Court/Tribunal is not challenged and stayed by a superior Court, no option is left with the party concerned but to implement it Very existence of the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals will become questionable if employer and particularly public authorities are allowed to ignore the award/order passed by the Labour Courts and the Tribunals. A situation of this type will lead to total subversion of the system of administration of justice. 6. It may have been possible for this Court to ask the petitioner to avail remedy under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by filing application for payment of wages. It may have also been possible for this Court to direct the petitioner to approach the Government for grant of sanction for prosecution of the functionaries of the Municipal Council for their failure to implement the award. It may have also been possible for this Court to direct the petitioner to approach the Government for grant of sanction for prosecution of the functionaries of the Municipal Council for their failure to implement the award. That would have however been a poor apology, for even after lapse of more than two years of the passing of the award the petitioner may have to wait for few more years before getting relief. Even if an order had been made under Section 33C(2), the petitioner may have been compelled to take further proceedings for implementation of the same by way of recovery under the Public Demands Recoveries Act and then sought a further writ of a mandamus from this Court if the administrative authorities were to ignore the demand made by the petitioner. Wanton failure of the public employer like the Municipal Council, Jodhpur is another ground for not asking the petitioner to avail other remedies. Delay in implementation of the award has already caused serious injury to the public interest because the petitioner will have to be paid out of a public money without working at least for the period of commencing from May 1, 1991. 7. Having taken note of the above situation, I do not even consider it necessary to give a notice to the Municipal Council, Jodhpur because what is being directed by the Court to the Municipal Council and its functionaries is to implement the award dated April 30, 1991 which has acquired finality. 8. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the Municipal Council, Jodhpur to implement the award dated April 30, 1991 within one month of submitting a certified copy of this order. Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan so that the Chief Executive of the Government may know as to how the public authorities act in the matters relating to awards and orders passed by the Labour Courts and Tribunals and in the process cause grave injury to the public interest. It is expected that the Chief Secretary will issue instructions to the public authorities to implement the award/order passed by the Labour Courts/ Tribunals expeditiously unless the same is stayed by a superior Court.Petition Disposed of With Directions. *******