IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12650 of 1999 Between: G. Gopal … Petitioner AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC Bus Depot, Zaheerabad & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V. Narsimha Goud Counsel for the respondents : Sri V. Padmanabha Rao for Smt. B.G. Uma Devi This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12650 of 1999 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 07.01.1999 passed in E.P.No.4 of 1998 in I.D.No.103 of 1995 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Labour Court’). Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is a driver in the APSRTC (for short, ‘the Corporation’) and was removed from service by order dated 05.05.1995. He raised I.D.No.103 of 1995 before the Labour Court and the same was allowed by award dated 23.09.1996, wherein the petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service with continuity of service and 25% back wages. On the ground that the said award was not implemented, the petitioner filed E.P.No.4 of 1998 before the Labour Court. By order dated 07.01.1999, which is impugned in this writ petition, the said E.P. was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’). I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The Labour Court expressed the view that since there is a dispute regarding the quantum of the amount, which the petitioner is entitled to receive, an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act is appropriate. On this premise, it dismissed the execution petition. In my considered view, the whole approach of the Labour Court is perverse, to say the least. Under Section 11-B of the Act, the Labour Court shall have the power of a civil Court to execute its award or any settlement as a decree of a civil Court. This provision was introduced by Act 32 of 1987 with effect from 27.07.1987. The obvious purpose of introduction of this provision is to obviate the necessity of the parties in whose favour awards are passed to file an independent application such as the one under Section 33-C (2). When once the Labour Court is conferred with the power of execution, it is duty bound to adjudicate all the disputes arising in the execution of the award. Section 33-C (2) under which the Labour Court is conferred with the power to adjudicate the disputes pertaining to the quantum of the amounts, which a workman is entitled to receive, is distinct from Section 11-B. Under the latter provision, a workman, who is ordinarily not a party to an earlier dispute, can independently maintain an application, while a party to an industrial dispute, in whose favour an award is passed, can invoke the provisions of Section 11-B by filing an execution petition for due execution of the award passed in his favour. The Labour Court failed to keep in mind this distinction and unnecessarily dismissed the petitioner’s application, which resulted in multiplication of proceedings. It also failed to realize that under Section 33-C (2) again the Labour Court itself has to decide the same dispute. The impugned order is therefore quashed. The execution petition is restored to the file of the Labour Court and the Labour Court is directed to dispose of the execution petition within a period of three months from today after issuing notice to both the parties. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01.12.2008 ES