The central legal point established in the judgment is the option available to the award holder to elect either of the two remedies under Section 11(10) and Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for executing the award, and the concurrent jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the appropriate government/Labour Commissioner in certain cases.

VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)

1. Despite service, none has appeared for the respondent no.1 even after a pass over. No counter-affidavit has been filed by either of the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.2, and I now proceed to dispose of the petition.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek the setting aside/quashing of the orders dated 4th February, 2012; 27th March, 2012; and 14th June, 2012. The first order dated 4th February, 2012 has been passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court in ID No. 311/02 on the application of the petitioner. The second order dated 27th March, 2012 has been passed by the District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge (I/C) East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, holding that the execution is for an unliquidated amount and, consequently, the petitioners application for transfer of the execution petition preferred by him - to execute the Industrial Award dated 30th March, 2011, to the Court of ADJ has been dismissed.

3. The third order assailed is passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner (East) Delhi observing that, for execution of the aforesaid award the petitioner has preferred an execution petition before the Civil Court and, in view of Section 11(10) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for shot, the Act), introduced by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010, the Labour Court has sent the award to the Civil Court for execution and, therefore, no action is warranted on the petitioners application unde section 33C(1) of the Act. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that Section 33C(1) and Section 11(10) of the Act are alternative remedies and the workman has the option to elect either of the remedy. The petitioner seeks a direction to respondent no. 2 i.e. the Deputy Labour Commissioner to entertain the petitioners application under Section 33C(1) of the Act. The facts may now be noted.

4. The Labour Court passed an Award in favour of the petitioner in ID No. 180/10 New (Old – 311/02) on 30th March, 2011. By the said Award, the Labour Court held the termination of the petitioners service by the respondent-management to be illegal and directed his reinstatement in service with 50% back wages. It has further been held in the Award that if back wages are not paid within 30 days, simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the Award, till realization, would be payable to the workman by the management. In view of the amended Section 11(10) of the Act, the Labour Court sent a copy of the Award to the Senior Civil Judge, District East, Delhi.

5. Section 11(10) of the Act reads as follows:-

“11(10). The Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall transmit any award, order or settlement to a Civil Court having jurisdiction and such Civil Court shall execute the award, order or settlement as if it were a decree passed by it.”

6. The petitioner preferred an execution petition in the Court of Senior Civil Judge (SCJ), District East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. On 1st November, 2011, the Senior Civil Judge observed that copy of the Award already stood sent to that Court in terms of the Award dated 30th March, 2011. It was also informed to the Court that the Award had become enforceable with effect from 27th July, 2011 on publication of Award under Section 17 of the Act. The SCJ assigned the execution petition to the Court of Sh. Saurabh Kulshrestha Civil Judge for its disposal as per law, and directed the petitioner to appear before the said court on 1st November, 2011 at 2.00 PM.

7. From the execution petition preferred by the petitioner, it is seen that the amount claimed under the Award in the execution proceedings was Rs. 3,80,550/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the Award till realization. Since the amount of recovery was in excess of Rs. 3 lakhs and, therefore, beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, it appears,