IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12676 of 2010 Date of Decision: July , 2010 Bal Kishan ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ...Respondents Present: Mr.Kunal Dawar, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has an alternative remedy of seeking execution of the award, which stands in his favour. He has already filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for executing the award. In addition, he has also approached the Labour Inspector, Gurgaon for which notice has been issued to the respondents. In this background, no case for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court is made out. The notice by the Labour Inspector has been issued in the month of March, 2010. The High Court cannot act as an executing court of the award passed by the Labour Court. The petitioner is well advised to pursue his remedy before the Labour Inspector and also the jurisdiction invoked by him under Section 33C (2) of the Act. It is expected from the Labour Inspector that he will ensure proper compliance of the award and take it to its logical conclusion in case there is any reluctance on the part of the respondents to implement the same. The writ petition is disposed of. July 21, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE