^ ^l^. -/• ^r!^.p^r ^l N1^1. IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (L) No. 1-^ /2010 PETITIQNER ..-•"x'l^ \°.-:^v ^>^^'>'" ^-^•s^ ^v^v".^'" ^:...--- R.N. Yadav, S/o. Hari Prasad ^fibwf- ^sryeo^ Yadav^Ex- Junior Drill Operator, Employee no. 35009, R/o. Satnam Chowk Bharawbasti, Near Bhanusata House Camp -2, !Z>V^^ Distt.- Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. ^' 2: 3. t"'^ Bhilai Engineering Corporation Ltd. Through: its Managing Director, Industrial Area Hathkhoj, Bhilai, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) Labour Court, Durg Through its Member Judge, Durg (C.G.) Asstt. Labour Commissioner Durg, Distt. Durg(C.G.) ^ Al. 4,^ S ^s^ M WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22^'OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^^:-. -.^ c.. :M!GH_CO_URTOFCJ4HATT1SGARH,.LB!:LASPUR PETiTIGN.ER WRIT PET!T!ON (U N0.766 OF 2010 R.N.Yadav. ,!.. Versus RESPONDENTS Shi.Sai Engineerjng' ' Corporatlo.n Ltd.&Others ~ . (Wrlt Petition undeF Artlcte 226 of the .Constitutionof l-ndia) 'Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shrl Ajay Thakre, counsei for the petltioner. ('ORAU • . ^ '.' (Passed on thls 22nd day of February, :201'0) With the .consent of IsarnedcounseS appearlng 'for the. pet'rtioner,the petition is heard finaily. : By this petitlon, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 i.e. Labour Court, Durg, toteke appropriate action for enforcement of the award dated 22-11-2006 •(Annexure - P/1.) passed by it in case' No.75/MPSR Act, .C/2001 (R.N.~ Y8dav''-v. Manag&r, -BhSa's EngmQS.mg Corporation ttd.).. Learned' counsel appearing for.the petitioner ..submits ^that the petitioner was permanent worker' of respondent No.1 herein. The petitioner was terminated from servlce by order dated 15-1-2001. Belng aggrieved bythe.terminatlon order, the petitionerfltedan application underthe.previsions ofthe .Chhattjsgarh industriai Relation Act, 1960 (for short "the Act, 1960"), which was .aiiowed1 in favour of the ,petltloner by orderdated 22-1.1-2006., : ..A- Thereagaint" the'-'emp'loyer/respondent No.t' preferred an appeal being Mlsc.:-- Appeal,,No.'. 7CGIR/iJi/2006. (^ Eng'ineenng-'Corpn. Ltd. y.'.RM ^ada^r'-before the industriai Court, Raspur, whichwas:'dismisseaaby maintaming the^order •passed-bythe Labour Court. 'Aggrleved by the said order, the emp'ioyer preferred a': petition belng ..W.P.' (L) No.4179/2007 (Bililai Engineering CQrporation Umited v. State industria! Couft & Others). Tne said writ petition; was dismissed bv, this ;Court as withdrawn by order dated 124-9-2007. ,The ordsr dated 24-9-2007.reads^as under: "LA.No.2 is an appiicati'on'for " perm.lssion to wlthdraw WP (L) No.4179/2007. Learned counsel : for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does: not' want -to press WP', (L) , ' ,No.4^ 79/2007. Accordingly, • the .appjication (IA No.2) !s alSowed and ''t'he'Writ petition is dismissed: as not 5. Leamed counsei further submits'that the empioyer Is not perm.itting the petitioner/ernployee to join his'duties forwhich he made several' appiications before the Labour Court, but tiil date no action has.been taken. .Thus, this petition. •6. i have heard.learned counsei appearing fbr the-petitioner, perused the'.pleadings and-1 the •..documents appended. thereto. , .../': . ^ ! :, •'- 7. Admjttedly,-the award was passed' by'the Labour Court, Dura. in 'favour of the empio.vee and the 'lndustrial Court also confirmed the award passed by the. Labour Court. According to,the''provisions contained under the Act, 1960 8. GQwri the petitioner ought to haveapproached the learned Labour ,Court, Durg, for execution of the award1 dated 22-11-2006 passed by the Labour Court, after the writ petition filed by the empioyer against the order passed'by the Industriai' Court has been withdrawn. There is nothing on record to indicate that after withdrawai of the writ petition fiied by-the empiQyer the petitioner has Tiied any' applicatjon before the Labour Court:seeking execution ofthe award passed bythe Labour Court and further confirmed by the.Jndustriaj Court.' This Court 'ln exercise of jts e>draordinary jurisdiction under As'ticie 226 of the Constitution of Sndia cannot execute th© order passed by the Labour Court when there is a spedfic provislon'for execution of the award underthe provislons ot' theA.ct,1960. In view of foregolng; the wrrt petition fatts and is hereby dismissed at the motion'stage itseif. .However, "liberty is " •reserved':to the petitioner to approach the appropriate' authority for enforcement of the impugned award, In accordance with law. ! Sd/- 1 SatishK.Agnihotri ( Judge