IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1268 of 2008 Taufeeq S/o Shafi Ahmad, R/o Military Farm, Dehradun, Cantt Dehradun. ……… Petitioner Versus 1. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun, 2. Officer in Charge, Military Far, Dehradun, 3. Deputy Director General, Military Farm, Army Head Quarter, III Blaock, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. ……… Respondents …………………….. Sri Gopal Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Arvind Vashisth, learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India/respondents. Date: May 19, 2009 Hon’ble B.S.Verma,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue writ of mandamus directing the Regional Labour Commissioner to execute the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow by recovering the amount of back wages from the respondent department and same may be paid to the petitioner and the petitioner may be reinstated in service. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that eleven other writ petitions have already been disposed of by this Court on 26.12.2007 for similar controversy with the direction to the respondent No.1 to conclude the execution proceedings in each case expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 2 3. Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of all the respondents vehemently contended that the proceedings ought to have been taken under Section 29 or Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In reply thereto the learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that non-mentioning of provision does not mean that this application be not treated to be moved under Section 33C(1) of the Act. The recovery certificate can be issued by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central). The Central Government has already delegated the power to the Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner. This fact is not disputed. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents can not be accepted for the simple reason that both the remedies are available to the petitioner, firstly, by moving the application under Section 33C(1) and, secondly, in case of breach of award the penalty may be imposed under Section 29 of the Act. 4. Since the issue is covered by order dated 26.12.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.244/2007 (M/S) and ten other writ petitions by which the controversy has been resolved, this petition is also disposed of finally with the direction to the respondent No.1/ Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) to expedite and conclude the execution proceedings by treating the application to be moved under Section 33C(1) of the Act, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 5. Interim relief application No.4715/2008 automatically stands disposed of. (B.S.Verma,J.) 19.05.2009 P.Singh