1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.336 of 2011 M.Mandaiveeran .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai 625 020. 2.The Assistant Director of Panchayats, Collectorate Complex, Madurai 625 020. 3.The Panchayat Union Commissioner, Melur Panchayat Union, Melur Taluk, Maduai District. 4.The President, Kottakudi Panchayat, Kottakudi, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Mandamus directing all the respondents to implement the orders, dated 11.09.2007 in I.D. Petition No.130 of 2002 and the orders dated 29.09.2009 in claim Petition No.84 of 2009 of the Labour Court, Madurai, within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner :Mr.G.Balasubramanian for Mr.S.Visvalingam For Respondents :Mr.TS.MD.Mohideen Additional Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner in this writ petition seeks for a direction to the respondents to implement the award passed by the Labour Court, Madurai in I.D.No.130 of 2002. By the afore-said award the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and backwages. Since the award was not complied with, the petitioner moved the Labour Court with an application under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act). The above said petition was taken on file in Claim Petition No.84 of 2009. The Labour Court by exparte proceedings granted a sum of Rs.43,079/- to the petitioner, who was employed as Sanitary Worker in the fourth respondent, Kottakudi Panchayat, Melur Taluk. 2. Instead of making appropriate application before the same Labour Court under Section 11-B of the Act for executing its own award, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 petitioner gave a representation to the District Collector, during the grievance day. Pursuant to the said representation, it is seen that the Block Development Officer, Melur had written a letter to the fourth respondent to comply with the order and with this litigation, the petitioner seeks for further direction from this Court. 3. Such a course of action on the part of the petitioner is unnecessary, especially when the Labour Court has specifically empowered to execute its own order or award by introduction of Section 11-B of the Act. The said provision is held to be constitutionally valid by the Judgment of this Court reported in 2011 (4) CTC 118 (S.Gunasekaran V. The Government of Tamil Nadu). Hence, the petitioner is directed to approach the Labour Court for appropriate relief. 4. With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T & P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai 625 020. 2.The Assistant Director of Panchyats, Collectorate Complex, Madurai 625 020. 3.The Panchayat Union Commissioner, Melur Panchayat Union, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 4.The President, Kottakudi Panchayat, Kottakudi, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. +1. CC to Mr.S.Visvalingam, Advocate, SR.No. 36120 +1. CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 35849 jikr Order made in W.P.(MD)No.336 of 2011 14.10.2011 TR :31.10.2011: 2p/7c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/