JUDGMENT Sujoy Paul, J. 1. With the consent, finally heard. 2. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of entitlement and on the basis of award of Labour Court dated 17-05-2007 (Annexure P/3). In addition, it is prayed that the petitioner may be regularized from the date his juniors have been regularized. 3. Briefly stated, the petitioner contended that he was initially appointed as a daily rated employee on 08-04-1988. He is still working in the said capacity. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which was decided by Labour Court in Case No.33/03 I.D. (Reference). By award dated 17-05-2007 (Annexure P/3) the Court declared the action of respondents in not regularizing the petitioner as illegal and unjustifiable. Resultantly, directed to create a post of 'Chowkidar' as per Circular dated 09-01-1990 within 30 days and regularize the petitioner on the said post within aforesaid time. 4. Shri Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in absence of any challenge to this award, it had attained finality. The petitioner's representation for regularization went in vain. By taking this Court to the Para 5.5 of the petition and the document dated Nill February, 2011 (Annexure R/1), it is submitted that one Shri Uday Pratap Singh, who was appointed as daily rated employee in general category on 12- 032011, was considered and regularized as 'Chowkidar' whereas the petitioner despite being much senior and having the award of Labour Court in his favour was not regularized. 5. By taking this Court to the order 02-04-2018 (Annexure P/10), Shri Pandey submits that the date of appointment of said Shri Uday Pratap Singh can be gathered i.e. 12-032011. 6. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer supported the action of the respondents. It is urged that the award of Labour Court cannot be enforced in a writ petition. The petitioner was informed by order dated 21-05-2012 (Annexure R/2) that he cannot be regularized because the post was not lying vacant against which his claim could have been entertained. 7. No other point is pressed by the parties. 8. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record. 9. Indisputably, the award of Labour Court aforesaid, in absence of opposition, had attained finality. Thus, the respondents should have honoured and implemented the said award. 7. No other point is pressed by the parties. 8. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record. 9. Indisputably, the award of Labour Court aforesaid, in absence of opposition, had attained finality. Thus, the respondents should have honoured and implemented the said award. In the present proceeding, this Court is not obliged to examine the validity of the award. This is trite law that an order remain enforceable unless necessary proceedings are taken to get it quashed. [See (1990) 1 SCC 234 (Shiv Chandra Kapoor vs. Amar Bose, (2002) 9 SCC 28 (Govt. of Orissa vs. Ashok Transport Agency & Ors., (2011) 3 SCC 363 (Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia & Ors. vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group & Ors. and (2017) 1 SCC 622 (Robust Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. EIH Ltd. & Ors.] Thus, it can be safely concluded that the respondents were obliged to implement the said award unless the same is interfered with by a higher forum. I find support in my view from Jagdish Chand vs. State of Haryana, 1994 SCC Online P & H 854 wherein it has been held as under: " 6............This award was published on 6 August, 1993. The employer did not challenge this award before the High Court under Article 226 or before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court acquired finality. This final award conferred a legal right in favour of the petitioner to be reinstated in service with benefit of continuity of service and back-wages. At the same time, a corresponding obligation was imposed on the employer (respondents 2 and 3) to take steps for fruitifying the rights which vested in the petitioner by virtue of Annexure P1. Failure of respondents. 2 and 3 to implement the award for a period of one year and total absence of any justification for this negligence on the part of the respondents are sufficient to draw a conclusion that respondents 2 and 3 have failed to carry out their duty and this has resulted in clear infringement of legal right of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has a right to seek a writ of mandamus against the respondents." 10. Therefore, the petitioner has a right to seek a writ of mandamus against the respondents." 10. The document (Annexure R/1) shows that twelve persons were considered on the post of 'Chowkidar' and Shri Uday Pratap Singh (general category) was decided to be regularized on the said post. His date of appointment is 12-03- 2011. The petitioner had a preferential right to be regularized over and above Shri Uday Pratap Singh being senior to him. Although in the order dated 21-05-2012 it is mentioned that the petitioner's claim for regularization was considered by Screening Committee on 05-02-2011, the proceeding (Annexure R/1) does not contain the name of petitioner at all. Thus, there are two possibilities-(i) petitioner's case was not at all considered for regularization because his name does not figure in the said proceeding; and (ii) it was considered but regularization order was not passed on the ground that the post was not lying vacant. As per proceeding, one post of general category was permitted to be occupied by way of regularization of Shri Uday Pratap Singh, who is much junior to the petitioner. Thus, on both counts- (i) if the petitioner's claim for regularization was not considered, the proceeding cannot be countenanced; and (ii) if it was considered and a junior was regularized, it cannot get a stamp of approval from this Court. 11. So far the arguments of learned Government Counsel that writ petition is not entertainable for enforcement of award is concerned, in the peculiar facts of this case, I do not see any merit in the said contention. The award has not been implemented in last 12 years. The respondents cannot take benefit of their own inaction/wrong. There is a legal maxim which reads as under:- "commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet (no party can take undue advantage of his own wrong)." The Apex Court in (2007) 11 SCC 447 (Kusheshwar Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar) considered the said legal maxim and opined as under:- "It is a maxim of law, recognized and established, that no man shall take advantage of his own wrong; and this maxim, which is based on elementary principles, is fully recognized in courts of law and of equity, and, indeed, admits of illustration from every branch of legal procedure." 12. It is settled principle of law that a man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law. It is sound principle that he who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the nonperformance he has occasioned. To put it differently, "a wrongdoer ought not to be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong". See: Pradeep Jain & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. 2012 SCC Online MP 1757. 13. Needless to emphasise, the respondents were under a legal obligation to implement the award passed by the labour court. If they have not implemented the award for the reasons solely attributable to them, the award will not vanish in the thin air. 14. The constitution bench of Supreme Court in Dwarkanath vs. Income Tax Officer, AIR 1966 SC 81 , poignantly held that our Constitution designedly used a wide language under Article 226 to enable the Courts to reach justice whenever found necessary and to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country. This judgment was followed in 1986 (2) SCC 679 (Comptroller and Auditor General of India vs. K.S. Jagannathan). 15. The respondents were duty bound to implement the award. Had it been implemented in time, the petitioner would have been regularised long back. It was held that in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the parties concerned, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or the public authority should have passed or given on it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion. This ratio was followed by Apex Court in 2000 (8) SCC 395 (Badrinath vs. Government of Tamil Nadu). The Courts are to dispense justice, not to dispense with justice and, justice to be dispensed is not palm tree justice or idiosyncratic justice. [See: 1984 (3) SCC 90 (Ramesh Kumar vs. Ram Kumar and others)]. 16. R.M. Sahai J. in S. Nagraj vs. State of Karnataka, 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 595 opined that Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. The order of the Court should not be prejudicial to anyone. 16. R.M. Sahai J. in S. Nagraj vs. State of Karnataka, 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 595 opined that Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. The order of the Court should not be prejudicial to anyone. Rule of stare decisis is adhered for consistency but it is not as inflexible in Administrative Law as in Public Law. Even the law bends before justice. Entire concept of writ jurisdiction exercised by the higher courts is founded on equity and fairness. 17. R.P. Sethi, J. in Lily Thomas vs. Union of India, 2000 (6) SCC 224 has held that Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. 18. In this view of the matter, it is clear that the action of respondents in not implementing the award is bad in law. Similarly, the respondents have erred in not regularizing the petitioner from the date his juniors have been regularized. The respondents in view of award dated 17-05-2007 were under an obligation to regularize the petitioner within 30 days from the date of communication of the award. 19. Accordingly, this petition is allowed by directing the respondents to implement the award dated 17-05-2007 and provide all consequential benefits to petitioner from due date within 90 days from the date of communication of this order.