Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2043 (HP)

Raman Kumar v. State of H. P.

2016-09-22

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, SANDEEP SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. All these writ petitions have been filed with following identical prayer: “i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to implement the award dated 12.08.2013 (Annexure P-1) forthwith in its true letter and spirit, after the dismissal of CWP No. 9576/2013 dated 08.01.2014 (Annexure P-2) and CWP No. 4658/2014 dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure P-3) & also dismissal of LPA 4/2016 (Annexure P-4) on 02.01.2016, since the petitioner is out of job and regularly visiting the office of respondent No.2 for his re-engagement and the award has also attained the finality qua the respondents, further, the award dated 12.08.2013 (Annexure P-1) may kindly be modified after awarding full back wages alongwtih interest/emoluments & cost, in view of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jasmer Singh’s case (Annexure P-5) 2015(4) SCC 458 , including the full back wages and interest/emoluments @ 18% per annum from the date of illegal retrenchment/termination alongwtih cost (Rs. 25000/-) in view of the peculiar proved facts and circumstance of the present case, in the interest of law and justice.” 2. Petitioners, in all the writ petitions, had invoked the jurisdiction of Labour Court for redressal of their grievances, awards were made and the petitioners were ordered to be re-engaged, without any monetary benefits, awards were subject matter of writ petitions, Letters Patent Appeals before this Court and Special Leave Petitions before the Apex Court, which, as per the learned counsel for the petitioners, came to be dismissed and the awards passed by the Labour Court have attained finality. 3. The moot question is - whether the petitioners can invoke writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the execution of an award passed by a Labour Court? 4. For that, we may make a reference to Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short, the Act), which deals with the procedure, powers and duties of the Authorities. Sub Sections (4), (8) and (9) of Section 11 of the Act provide that an award made by the Labour Court shall be executed in accordance with the procedure laid down for execution of orders and decree of a Civil Court under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sub Sections (4), (8) and (9) of Section 11 of the Act provide that an award made by the Labour Court shall be executed in accordance with the procedure laid down for execution of orders and decree of a Civil Court under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is apt to reproduce sub sections (4), (8) and (9) of the Act hereunder: “(4) A conciliation officer may enforce the attendance of any person for the purpose of examination of such person or call for and inspect any document which he has ground for considering to be relevant to the industrial dispute or to be necessary for the purpose of verifying the implementation of any award or carrying out any other duty imposed on him under this Act, and for the aforesaid purposes, the conciliation officer shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in respect of enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him or of compelling the production of documents. (8) Every Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall be deemed to be Civil Court for the purposes of sections 345, 346 and 348 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (9) Every award made, order issued or settlement arrived at by or before Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal shall be executed in accordance with the procedure laid down for execution of orders and decree of a Civil Court under order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).” 5. Bare perusal of the above quoted provision does disclose that for execution of an award passed by a Labour Court, the mechanism contained in the Act itself has to be followed. Thus, the petitioners ought not to approach this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking execution of the award passed by the Labour Court, rather they should have resorted to execution proceedings, as provided under the Act. 6. It is apt to record herein that this Court in terms of order, dated 18th February, 2016, commanded the respondents to reinstate the petitioners, is a factor to be kept in mind. 7. Viewed thus, the writ petitions are not maintainable. 6. It is apt to record herein that this Court in terms of order, dated 18th February, 2016, commanded the respondents to reinstate the petitioners, is a factor to be kept in mind. 7. Viewed thus, the writ petitions are not maintainable. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petitions by directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioners, as directed by the Labour Court, within a period of four weeks from today. However, it is made clear that this order shall not be treated as precedent. Pending CMPs, if any, also stand disposed of.