IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.26733 of 2003 Between: The Engineer-in-Chief, I & CAD Major Irrigation, Errumanzil, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And Chinni Purushotham and another. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.26733 of 2003 ORDER: Heard the learned Government Pleader for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/workman. The workman was an employee in the erstwhile A.P. State Construction Corporation Limited, N.S.L.C. Unit, Khammam as Winch Operator from 05.09.1977 and he continued as such, till 06.08.1979. Thereafter, his services were dispensed with, or rather terminated. Aggrieved by the same, the workman raised I.D. No.232 of 1990 under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’) contending that his termination is illegal. After full fledged trial by the learned Tribunal, by award dated 26.05.1994, while setting aside the order of termination, directed the Department to reinstate the workman into service by absorbing him in any Government department or in any Government Corporation with continuity of service and without back wages but he is entitled for wages from the date of his approaching the Court i.e. from the date of filing of the I.D., till the date of his reinstatement at the prevailing rates. Aggrieved by the same, the department filed W.P. No.3334 of 1995 and this Court by order dated 24.08.1999, while setting aside the impugned award, in respect of the payment of back wages, upheld the impugned award, in respect of the reinstatement and continuity of service of the workman. Thereby, the award passed in I.D. No.232 of 1990 became final. Therefore, the workman was reinstated into service. While so, the workman had filed E.P. No.33 of 2001 in I.D. No.232 of 1990 praying the learned Tribunal to recover an amount of Rs.2,87,020/- in terms of the award in I.D. No.232 of 1990, failing which to order for attachment of movables under Order XXI Rule 43 CPC and sale of properties under Order XXI Rule 64 CPC against the judgment debtor. By order dated 06.11.2003, the learned Tribunal allowed the E.P. No.33 of 2001 and directed the department to pay the amount claimed by the workman on or before 12.12.2003, failing which, attachment of movables will be ordered and directed to list the matter on 12.12.2003 for payment. Assailing the same, the department filed the present writ petition. This Court on 24.12.2003, while issuing Rule nisi granted interim suspension in W.P.M.P. No.3383 of 2003 subject to condition of depositing fifty per cent of the amount awarded, within eight weeks and on such deposit, the workman was given liberty to withdraw the same, without furnishing any security. Aggrieved by the said interim suspension, the department carried the matter in appeal in W.A. No.261 of 2004 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 16.02.2004, while allowing the appeal, modified the order by staying the operation of the order dated 06.11.2003 made in E.P. No.33 of 2001 in I.D. No.232 of 1990 leaving it open to the learned single Judge to consider the W.P.M.P. No.33831 of 2003 on merits after hearing the parties. While the things stood thus, the writ petition has come up for final hearing. Ultimately the order passed in E.P. No.33 of 2001 has not been given effect consequently the workman has not been benefited with the order passed in the said E.P. Now the point arises for consideration is that as to whether the order passed in the E.P. No.33 of 2001 is sustainable in law? The learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners department submits that the learned Tribunal had committed an error in entertaining the E.P. No.33 of 2001, as it had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Hence, the order passed in the said E.P. is liable to be dismissed as the same is passed without jurisdiction. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the workman submits that whatever the grounds that have been taken by the learned Government Pleader were taken before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal after considering the same, passed the award. Further, the E.P. is maintainable under Section 11-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, no interference is required under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the workman is continuing in service. Of course, this fact may not be relevant for the purpose of considering the validity of the order passed by the learned Tribunal in E.P. No.33 of 2001. The main contention of the learned Government Pleader for the petitioners is that the E.P. filed under Section 11-B of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable. For the purpose of considering the said aspect, it is necessary to extract Section 11-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, which reads as under: “11-B. Power of Labour Court or Tribunal to execute its award by decree:- A Labour Court or a Tribunal shall have the power of a Civil Court to execute its award or any settlement as a decree of a Civil Court.” From a perusal of the Act, particularly, Section 11-B of the Act, it is clear that the Labour Court or a Tribunal is empowered with all the powers of a civil Court to execute its award or any settlement as the decree of the civil Court. Admittedly, in the instant case the workman, who was terminated from the service, raised an industrial dispute and the learned Tribunal after full fledged trial adjudicated the matter in favour of the workman holding that such termination is illegal and accordingly passed an award directing the department to reinstate the workman into service either in any Government department or in any Government Corporation, in view of the fact that the workman was employed in an organization was windup by that time. Aggrieved by the same, the department carried the matter by way of writ petition, wherein, this Court upheld the reinstatement of the workman into service. As could be seen, when the award passed by the learned Tribunal is not being implemented, the course that is open to the workman, is to file an Execution Petition under Section 11-B of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the E.P., cannot be sustained. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is dismissed. However, as the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that for the purpose of correspondence with the authorities concerned, some time is required, therefore, I deem it appropriate to grant one month time for compliance. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 24.06.2011 LSK