The right to livelihood, including public employment, is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, and courts have a duty to protect this right from arbitrary actions of the State and its agencies.

G. S. Singhvi, J.

1. The petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to comply with the award dated May 24, 1993 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon, in Reference Case No.284 of 1989. Another prayer made by the petitioner is for issue of a direction to respondent No.1 to sanction prosecution of respondent Nos.2 and 3 for non-compliance of the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court.

2. In short, the case of the petitioner is that while he was serving as a Helper on daily wages in the service of the Haryana Tourism Corporation Limited, the employer terminated his service with effect from November 30, 1988 without holding a proper and fair enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice, He raised a dispute against the termination of his service. The Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon. After considering the rival cases, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court held that the termination of the service of the workman (Petitioner) was illegal and unjustified and that he was entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and full back wages. The petitioner submitted his joining report on July 23, 1993 before the Divisional Manager and prayed for being allowed to discharge his duties. When respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not comply with the award, he made an application before the Labour Inspector, Rewari, for getting the award implemented. He also filed a compliant before the Labour Commissioner to sanction prosecution of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Petitioner has stated that all his efforts to secure implementation of the award have proved futile and, therefore, appropriate directions be issued by this Court.

3. In his reply, respondent No.1 has pleaded that the allegation of the petitioner to the effect that respondent No.1 has not taken any step for compliance of the award is not correct. In fact, he had written letter (Annexure R.1) dated March 29, 1994, to implement the award immediately. In their separate reply, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have stated that office order dated April 18, 1994 has been issued for compliance of the award dated May 24, 1993. It has also been stated that on account of availability of alternative remedy under Sec.33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act of 1947) as also under Sec.29 of the said Act, this Court should not entertain the petition.

4. A replication to the reply of respondents Nos.2 and 3 has been filed by the petitioner wherein he has stated that the respondents have not taken steps for his reinstatement on his old post and have not paid him full back wages.

5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition by arguing that when alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under Sec.29 of the Act of 1947 as well it should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel argued that if the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court was not complied with by respondent No.2 and 3, the petitioner was entitled to seek their prosecution and at the same time make an application under Sec.33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 for payment of wages. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Mahabir Prasad V/s. Naresh Kumar and Ors.19930) S. L. R.138.

6. After having given my most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the argument of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, I find no substance in it. Admitted facts, which have come on record, show that after contest by respondent Nos.2 and 3, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon, upheld the claim of the petitioner about the invalidity of the action taken by the employer for termination of his service. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court unequivocally held that the termination of service of the petitioner was neither justified nor l