Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 999 (MAD)

G. Natesan v. Deputy Conservator of Forests

2012-02-24

K.CHANDRU

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Mr.K.M.Subramaniam, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 2. These Writ Petitions are filed by ex-employees of the Forest Department employed as Plot Watchers. They have moved the Labour Court with I.D.Nos. 139 of 2007, 255 of 2008, 134 of 2007, 137 of 2007, 140 of 2007, 130 of 2007, 142 of 2007, 132 of 2007, 141 of 2007 and 127 of 2007 respectively. By a common order passed by this Court, these Awards were upheld. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Awards are yet to be implemented. They have not been given any proper fixation of scale of pay and therefore they have come before this Court seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent, namely Conservator of Forests, Vellore District to comply with the awards and to fix their wages at the rate of Rs.11,000/- with effect from 22.6.2011. 4. This Court is not inclined to admit the Writ Petitions for more than one reason. Industrial Disputes Act has been amended by the State Legislature and Section 11-B of the Industrial Disputes Act has been introduced clothing the Labour Court the power to execute its own award. Subsequently, when the State Government took a stand that in view of the Central Amendment, the State Amendment ceased to operate, this Court rejected the said contention vide judgment in S.Gunasekaran vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department, Chennai-9 reported in 2011 (4) CTC 118 . Subsequently, when there is no infrastructure created in the Labour Courts, this Court also granted direction to provide necessary infrastructure enabling the Labour Courts to carry on the execution work in respect of non-compliance of the award. 5. Under the circumstances, the very same Labour Court has power to execute its own award. There is no reason for this Court to entertain the Writ Petitions when effective alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Transport and Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 528, in paragraph 14, the Supreme Court had observed as follows: 14. In our opinion the writ petition filed by the appellants should have been dismissed by the High Court on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. In our opinion the writ petition filed by the appellants should have been dismissed by the High Court on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is well settled that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction, and the discretion should not ordinarily be exercised if there is an alternative remedy available to the appellant. In this case there was a clear alternative remedy available to the appellants by raising an industrial dispute and hence we fail to understand why the High Court entertained the writ petition. It seems to us that some High Courts by adopting an over liberal approach are unnecessarily adding to their load of arrears instead of observing judicial discipline in following settled legal principles. However, we may also consider the case on merits." 6. In the light of same, all the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Dismissal of the Writ Petitions will not disentitle the petitioners from moving the Labour Court for instituting the appropriate Execution Proceedings.