IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.01.2010 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.1235 of 2010 N.KARUPPUSAMY ..PETITIONER Vs 1. THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, COIMBATORE. 2. THE MANAGEMENT OF CPRM STEELS LTD. NARASIMHA NAICKAN PALAYAM POST COIMBATORE 641 031. REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.M. VENKATESAN. ..RESPONDENTS Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount of Rs.100000/- deposited before the 1st respondent in the account of I.D.No.123 of 1996 as per the directions of this court in WA.No.1516 of 2006 dated 13.2.2008 along with accrued interest thereon. For Petitioner : Mr.G.B.Saravan Bhavan O R D E R It is very unfortunate that the petitioner should have filed a Writ Petition of this nature. The petitioner is a workman, who seeks permission to withdraw the amount of Rs.1 Lakh deposited before the 1st respondent, Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D.NO.123 of 1996 in terms of the directions of this Court made in Writ Appeal No.1516 of 2006 dated 13.2.2008. 2. It is seen from the records that an ex-parte award was passed by this Court in I.D.NO.123 of 1996 on 28.8.2003. Aggrieved by the said Award, the 2nd respondent management filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.22091 of 2006. In the said Writ Petition, this Court set side the ex-parte award and directed the Labour Court to decide afresh by a final order dated 28.9.2006. As https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a condition for setting aside the ex-parte award, this Court directed the 2nd respondent management to deposit Rs.1.5 Lakhs to the credit of I.D.NO.123 of 1996. The operative portion of the order as found in para 6 is as follows: "6. In order to enure the above benefit, the petitioner- management is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the credit of I.D.NO.123 of 1996 on the file of the 1st respondent- Labour Court within six weeks from this date, which shall be invested in a local State Bank of India in Fixed Deposit for a period of six months and the disbursal of the said amount can be decided by the 1st respondent - Labour Court depending upon the ultimate Award to be passed in the Industrial Dispute. That apart, the petitioner- management is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) by way of costs to the 2nd respondent-workman, which should be paid within four weeks from this date. Subject to the compliance of the above conditions, the benefit granted under this order will operate. WPMP is closed." 3. However, aggrieved by the order passed by this Court, the 2nd respondent management filed a Writ Appeal being W.A.No.1516 of 2006. In the Writ Appeal, the order passed by this Court was confirmed with the modification, namely, the amount to be deposited was reduced from Rs.1.5 Lakhs to Rs.1 Lakh. In other respect, the order of this Court was confirmed. Therefore, the petitioner's right to withdraw the amount of Rs.1 Lakh ultimately depends upon the outcome of the final award. It is now stated that the Labour Court had dismissed the petition in I.A.No.88 of 2009 filed by the management by an order dated 17.4.2009. 4. Therefore, according to the petitioner, since the award has become final and as per the directions of this Court, he is entitled to withdraw the amount lying in deposit with the Labour Court. Neither in the affidavit nor in the typed set, there is any attempt made by the petitioner for filing a payment out application before the Labour Court. On the contrary, considering that this Court as an Execution Court, such a Writ Petition has been filed. 5. It will not be out of place to mention that with effect from 1.7.2009, the Labour Court themselves have been clothed with the power of execution of its own award or order or any settlement by virtue of introduction of Section 11(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Instead of moving the Labour Court for appropriate relief, it is not open to the petitioner to seek a direction from this Court especially, when he had not exercised ample powers available with the Labour Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. In the light of the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ajr To THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, COIMBATORE. + 1 c.c. to Mr. G.B. Saravana Bhavan, Advocate. S.R.No.4369. W.P.No.1235 of 2010 AR (CO) GSK 01.02.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/