“Remedy To Execute Award Lies With Labour Court”: Uttarakhand HC Dismisses Writ Petitions Seeking Reinstatement In State Govt. Offices
The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions seeking reinstatement in Government offices holding that a remedy to execute an award lies with the Labour Court.
The Court explained that Section 11(9) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 mandated that awards made by labour courts must be executed in accordance with civil court under Order 21 of the CPC.
A Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit observed, “Petitioner instead of approaching the Labour Court for execution of award has approached this Court directly by filing the present writ petition seeking the aforesaid directions. The remedy to execute the award lies with the Labour Court. It needs to be mentioned at this stage that Section 11(9) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 speaks that every award made by a 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, 1908.”
Advocate Harendra Belwal represented the petitioner, while Advocate Atul Bahuguna appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner had been working with the government department since 2007 as a daily wager. After the department terminated his services, the matter was taken up to the State Government for a reference to the Labour Court as an industrial dispute and was instituted before the Labour Court.
The Labour Court allowed the reference of the petitioner and directed the competent authority to reinstate the petitioner in the post on which he was working before his termination.
The petitioners had filed the petition seeking a direction from the Court to enforce an award issued by the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court along with all consequential benefits.
Consequently, the Court held, “This Court cannot be converted into an Executing Court for execution of award passed by the Labour Court, which is a decree for the purpose of execution and shall be executed like a decree of civil court.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Naveen Ram v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Harendra Belwal
Respondents: Advocates Atul Bahuguna, Narayan Dutt and Bhupendra Singh Koranga