Sapre, J. -- 1. By filing this writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the claimant seeks to challenge the order dated 3.5.05/6.5.05 passed by Commissioner, Workmen Compensation (Labour Court Indore) in case No. 19/01 (WCF) P/1-C.

2. Facts of the case are these.

3. The petitioner is a claimant. She while working with respondent No.2 (non-applicant No.2) as a labourer sustained injuries. She, therefore, filed an application before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation (Labour Court Indore) being case No. 19/01 under the Workmen's Compensation Act and claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by her during the course of employment and arising out of employment. It was filed against respondent because they were sued as principal employer and contractor involved in the work. On contest, the application was allowed. The Commissioner's order dated 6.5.04 awarded a total sum of Rs.2,24,000/- together with interest payable at the rate of 6% to the claimant for the injuries sustained by her. The award was passed jointly and severally against the respondents for a total sum of Rs.2,24,000/- with the interest at rate of Rs.6%. This is what was held and directed:

(Para-8 )

^^mijksDr lk{; ,oa foospu ds vuqlkj foi{khx.k 1 ,oa 2 dks funsZf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd os izkFkhZx.k dks {kfr/ku ds :Ik esa vnk djus ds fy, :Ik;s 2]24]000@& ,oa bl ij 6% okf'kZd C;kt dh x.kuk nq?kZVuk fnukad ls vnk;xh fnukad rd dh djds leLr jde i`Fkd&i`Fkd :Ik ls rFkk la;qDr :Ik ls U;k;ky; esa tek djkosaA bl vkns"k ds ikyukFkZ foi{khx.k dks 60 fnu dk le; fn;k tkrk gSA**

4. This award became final because no one challenged the same in appeal.

5. Since the awarded sum was not deposited by the respondents i.e. judgment debtors and hence the claimant levied execution against the respondent for realization of awarded sum. Accordingly RRC was issued against the respondents for recovery of awarded sum. This led to deposit of part of the awarded sum i.e.Rs.1,37,978/- by respondent No.1 on the assumption that they have to deposit only their share in the awarded sum and which according to them was to the extent of Rs.1 ,37,978/-. The respondent No.1 thus on deposit of Rs.1,37,978/- contended that the award dated 6.5.09 so also the RRC issued is no more enforceable against respondent No.1 but it is now enforceable if at all only against respondent No.2 for recovery of the balance sum. It is this objection which was upheld by the Commissioner resulting in withdrawal of RRC so far as respondent No.1 was concerned. It is against this order, the claimant has felt aggrieved and filed this writ because the impugned order is not appealable under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act.

6. Heard Shri Sanjay Patwa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri G.S.Patwardhan and Shri Umesh Gajankush learned counsel for the respondents.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on persual of record of the case we are inclined to allow the writ and quash the impugned order.

8. In our opinion, the Commissioner was not right in withdrawing the RRC as against respondent No.1 on the ground that they having deposited their so called share of Rs.1,37,978/- out of the total awarded amount they are not liable for the balance. The learned Commissioner failed to see that the award dated 6.5.04 was joint and several against both the non-applicants/ respondents and hence so long as it was not executed in its entirety for realization of entire awarded sum, the RRC could not have been withdrawn against of the non-applicants/respondents.

9. When a decree/award is passed by Court jointly and severally against more than one judgment debtors then it is the sole prerogative of the decree holder to execute such award/decree and recover the entire decretal amount from any of the judgment debtor. In other words if the decree/award is passed against A and B jointly and severally for a sum of Rs.1,000/- then it is for the decree holder to decide as to whether he