The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decree-holder has multiple options for executing the award of the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, and the expression 'any other mode of recovery' in Section 33-C(1) allows the decree-holder to avail the remedy under Section 11(9) and (10) as well.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition challenges the legality and correctness of the order dated 6th April 2013 passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur whereby application (exhibit 19) filed by the petitioner taking objection to the maintainability of the execution proceeding initiated by the respondent has been rejected.

2. An award dated 20th August 2011 was passed by the Labour Court, Nagpur on the application of the respondent filed under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the “I. D. Act”). The respondent workman was held entitled to receive from the petitioner a sum of Rs. 2,82,224/-. This award dated 20th August 2011, when attained its finality, was not satisfied by the employer upon whom the entire liability to pay the money was fastened. The respondent workman was, therefore, compelled to initiate proceeding for execution of the award. Respondent approached the Joint Civil Judge, JD, Nagpur for the purpose and filed execution proceeding. The petitioner employer was still reticent as well as defiant. The petitioner, instead of satisfying the award, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the execution proceeding. The objection was rejected, as afore stated, by the executing court vide order dated 6th April 2013.

3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the language of Section 33-C(1) of the I. D. Act, which deals with recovery of money due from an employer, is very clear. According to him, the workman or any other person authorized by him or in case of his death, his assignee or legal heir, has to make an application in writing to the appropriate Government for recovery of money and when the appropriate Government is satisfied, it shall issue a certificate to the Collector and in that case, the dues can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. He further contends that under subsection (2) of Section 33-C of the I.D. Act, the question of amount of dues payable to the workman has to be decided by the Labour Court and the recovery of the dues has to be done, unless sub-section (1) of Section 33-C by the appropriate Government. According to him, when the Statute has created a special remedy for enforcing an award, the remedy under Section 33-C(1) of the I. D. Act, alone can be allowed to be availed of by the employee. He has placed his reliance upon the case of N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakhal Constituency, Namakkal & ors reported in AIR 1952, SC 64 (1).

4. According to learned counsel for the respondent workman, the impugned order is legal and proper as the provisions of Section 33C (1) of the I.D. Act clearly state that the application for recovery can be made without prejudice to any other mode of recovery.

5. Upon going through the provisions of Sections 11 and Section 33-C(1) of the I. D. Act, I find that there is no merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. In the present case, there is no dispute that the award dated 20th August 2011 has attained its finality. There is also no dispute about the fact that the money given under the award is Rs. 2,82,224/-. It is also not in dispute that this money is due from the petitioner to the respondent and the petitioner for the last about seven years has not satisfied the award. So, now what has remained to be decided is only the question as to where does the remedy lie for the workman to coercively recover the money due to him from the petitioner, who has steadfastly refused to mend his attitude.

7. After the amendment of the year 2010, which came into force w.e.f. 15.9.2010, one more remedy, apart from what was already available to a workman under Section 33-C(1), I.D. Act, came to be provided under Section 11(9) of the I.D. Act. This provision lays down inter alia, that every award made under the Act shall be executed in accordance with the procedure laid down for execution of orders and decrees of a Civil Court under Order 21 of the Code