Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 704 (MP)

Ramesh Kumar Singh v. State of M. P.

2014-06-23

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2014
Judgment: U.C. Maheshwari, J. 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. On behalf of the petitioners, employees of Public Health & Engineering Department, this petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing an appropriate writ for the following reliefs:- (i) To direct the respondents to give the regular appointment in the same posts in same place as per award passed by the learned labour court as well as appellate court. (ii) To direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners and comply the order passed by the learned labour court. (iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner. 3. On perusing the petition and papers placed on record, I have gathered information that initially some proceeding for appointments of the petitioners on the alleged posts was filed before the labour court. On consideration, such proceeding was allowed and the authorities of respondents were directed to give them the appointments with some further directions stated. At the instance of State-authorities, such order was challenged before the tribunal. On consideration by affirming the order of the labour court, such appeal was dismissed, on which the State-authorities approached to this court through W.P. No. 3867/1999. On consideration by affirming the order of the tribunal as well as of the labour court, such writ petition was dismissed, vide order dated 13.12.1999. Subsequent to that the petitioners had approached to the authorities of respondents to give them the appointments on the concerned posts with regularization but directions of such order of the labour court affirmed upto the High Court was not complied with by the State-authorities, on which the petitioners have come to this court with this petition. 4. It is apparent that till filing this petition on 25.10.2013, no proceeding was initiated by any of the petitioners before the labour court to execute the aforesaid earlier order passed by the labour court and this petition is filed without approaching the labour court. 4. It is apparent that till filing this petition on 25.10.2013, no proceeding was initiated by any of the petitioners before the labour court to execute the aforesaid earlier order passed by the labour court and this petition is filed without approaching the labour court. In this regard on asking the counsel for the petitioners, how this petition for execution of such order of the labour court could be entertained by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when the specific remedy to execute the order is available to the petitioner before the same labour court, on which he says that subsequent to filing this petition the petitioners have filed their execution proceeding in the labour court and the same is still pending but the labour court has not taken any steps either to execute the order or to issue any direction to the authorities of respondents and in such premises prayed to dispose of this petition with appropriate directions to the authorities of the concerning labour court, Sidhi to expedite the proceeding of such execution case within some time bound schedule. 5. The State's counsel did not have any objection in disposing of this petition on the aforesaid limited prayer of the petitioner's counsel but subject to verification of pendency of the execution proceeding because nowhere it is stated by the petitioners in the petition that they have filed the execution proceeding and the same is pending. Even by way of an amendment such averments have not been inserted in the petition. 6. In view of aforesaid submissions, in the available circumstances without expressing any opinion on merits of the question raised in this petition, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the labour court, Sidhi in which above stated execution proceeding of the petitioners is/are pending for execution of the earlier order to take an endeavour to expedite such proceeding and conclude the same in accordance with procedure on some early date, probably within twelve months from the date of filing the certified copy of this order by the petitioners in such court. 7. It is made clear that such court shall be at liberty to decide the question of limitation and entertainability of such execution proceeding in the light of existing legal provisions. 8. The petition is disposed of as indicated above. 9. There shall no order as to cost.