JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to Courts.

2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"By an appropriate writ, order or direction, order dated 10.11.2017 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Trial Court in Civil Case No. 28 of 2017 (Execution) Smt. Nameta K. Bomb v. Udaipur Mahila Samridhi Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors. may kindly quashed and set aside and the execution petition which has been filed by petitioner may kindly be executed as prayer in toto."

3. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the petitioner's services were terminated by the respondent-Bank vide order dated 04.04.2011, and after exhausting the available remedy and being unsuccessful in that pursuit, she has approached this Hon'ble Court claiming the aforementioned reliefs.

4. This Hon'ble Court directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority, whereafter the petitioner submitted her claim under Section 58 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 before the authority concerned, and in pursuance of the same, an Arbitrator was appointed, who in turn, passed an award/decree dated 04.09.2013, in favour of the petitioner.

5. The respondent-bank thereafter, filed an appeal against the aforementioned award/decree passed by the learned Arbitrator, and upon the said appeal being dismissed, the respondent-Bank preferred a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court, wherein interim relief was granted. The petitioner then filed an application seeking vacation of the said interim order, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court. The petitioner thereafter preferred a special appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, which was allowed and the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench, staying the operation of the award/decree of the learned Arbitrator was quashed, and the petitioner's application praying for vacation of interim stay was allowed.

6. The respondent-Bank then preferred an appeal through special leave before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the same was dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after this long drawn out process of litigation, as it stands today, there is no stay operating as against the award/decree dated 04.09.2013 passed by the learned Arbitrator, and thus, the petitioner ought to be reinstated with all notional benefits and consequential benefits for the period she was deemed to be unfairly terminated from service by the respondent-Bank.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the respondent-Bank, despite the petitioner approaching them seeking her lawful reinstatement, the respondent-Bank did not reinstate her into service, and therefore, the petitioner filed an application before the learned trial court for execution of the aforementioned arbitral award/decree.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent-Bank then filed an application under Order 21 Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC') seeking stay of the execution proceedings, which was then rejected by the learned trial court, and thereafter, the respondent-Bank filed another application under Order 21 Rule 22 read with Section 151 CPC raising objections as to the maintainability of the execution petition, to which the learned trial court passed the execution decree, only to the extent of granting the petitioner two days pay for the dates 27.11.2010 and 30.11.2010.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the award/decree as passed by the learned Arbitrator only stipulates that the petitioner is entitled to the aforementioned two days' salary, and that the same was already granted by the learned court below vide the impugned order dated 10.11.2017 passed in the execution proceedings.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank further submits t