^ -^- IN THE .HIGH 03URT OF M.©WAPR^ESH A! J/^MM3R WRXT PETITZON NO.'saJ:?"~' OF 199& . ^ .PETITIQNg& £~ N arayan P a±wa S/© S.hri .Lakhanlal P atwa ag e^ abeut 39 ye ar.s Qhang^ra Bhatha Opp^sxte Nirmal Factery' ;'_' Tahsil ansl Distri,ct]:iai»u.c, M*p.» ia K£STOMi®iTS_s~, l* VJ^.:Ji.^._.U__S. The Managihg Direct&r M-»P» Transp@rt c@m@any Private Ltd.* Ql^-Bus Stsn^, Rai^ur (MP)» . The C®llect@rBaipur, rsihsil and District Rai3iur(MP) * The Nsib Tahsilaar ( Shri Ash@k Tiw«ri) a Tahsil,Buil«in@ G»B«.Il@a^, 'Raipur^NP)« IlIISHQNjyNpEB.aHTICLE 226 QF OQNSTITUnON- OF INDIA ^^ss^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 5335 of 1996 Petitioner Narayan Patwa Versus Respondents The Managnig Director, M,P, Traiisport Compaay 3& ottiers h.^^sg^t. p^---.—.—^ WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OP INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri H. B, Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Ms Meera Jayaswal, Advocate for fhe petitioner. None for the respondent No.l. Shri A. V. Shridhar, Paael Lawyer for fhe respondents No. 2 & 3. O RD E R (Orali (Passed on this 17th day ofMarch, 2010) Heard, 1. Learaed counsel appearmg for the petitioner siibmits fhat fhe petitioner (Narayaa Patva) was workmg as Dnver ia the estabUshinent of M. P. Traasport Corapaay Pvt. Lt Raipur. Wifhout aiiy reason the petitioner was reinoved frora fhe job ia fhe raonth of October, 1989. On the appUcation of fhe petitioner, a reference was niade by fhe Deputy Labour Coinmissioner, Chhattisgarh Region, Raipur, on 9.9.1991. Haviag considered the matter, issiimg notice to fhe parties and allowmg opportunity to lead evidence, fhe Labour Court, Durg vide award dated 4.3.1993 (Anuexure P/1) directed for reinstatement of fhe petitioner wifh back wages. 2. Thereafber, fhe petitioner submitted aa appUcation on 13.4.1993 (Annexure P/ 2) for penmttmg his joiaiag aad payiaent of back wages. Neifher fhe respondentNo, 1 challenged fhe award dated 4.3.1993 ia a higher Court nor compUed wifh fhe same tUl date. 3. The petitioner took up the raatter for execution aad accordiagly a Revenue Recovery Certificate (Annexure P/5) was issued on 16.2.1995, In sequence fhereof a proclamation dated 22.1.1996 (Annexure P/9) was issued by the office of fhe Naib Tahsildar ia ^..^B^, ^•^^ ^, ~^^ ^^^^ 7. Thakur •L-- Revenue Case No. 2-A/76 year 94-95 for attachmeut of two vehicles offhe respondent No. 1. The grievaace offhe petitioner is tliat even after his frantic efforts to take up the matter before the conceraed statutory aufhorities for execution of the award dated 4,3.1993 (Annexure P/l), passed by fhe Labour Court, Durg, the award has yet not been executed ia its letter aad spirit. In normal course, this Court would not have entertaiaed a petition for execution of fhe award passed by the Labour Court, m exercise of powers under Article 226 of fhe Constitution of India, but fhe case on haad is a glarmg example of highhaadedness ia not raaterializiag fhe execution of aa award passed by a judicial Court for flie last about 17 years. In flie present case froin the orders sheets (Annexure P/8), it iscrystal clear that fhe order of attachinent of vehicle was passed on 12.12.1994 and sin.ee fhen tlie award reiaamed unexecuted. Having regard to fhe pecuUar facts and circuiastance of fhe case, fhe Collector, Raipur is directed to look into fhe raatter asto why the execution oftiie award dated 4.3,1993, passed by the Laboiir Court, Durg ia Case No. 31/91 I.D. Aet (Ref.), is pendiag before the Naib Tahsildar, Raipur siace 21.2,1994. It is expected fhat all necessary nieasures would be adopted by the conceraed aufhorities for execution of the award, m accordaace with law, as early as possible, preferably wifhin. a period of one inonfh froxa the date ofreceipt ofa copy oftihis order. With the above direction this petition staads disposed of. No order asto costs. —-— —' Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge r/'-