IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA nd ON THE 2 OF JULY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 1804 of 2024 RAM SURESH TIWARI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ramsuphal Chaturvedi - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Suyash Thakur - Government Advocate for respondents/State.

.......................................................................................................................................

ORDER This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

"(A) To issue a writ of in the like nature to direct the respondents authorities to regularize the petitioner since the date of order dated 22.11.2004, passed by Labour Court Rewa alongwith all consequential benefit, in the interest of justice.

(B) To issue a writ to the respondents to pay all the arrears of salary and other benefit in accordance with law, in the interest of justice.

(C) To issue any other writ/direction to the respondents which deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of this case."

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on the post of Supervisor on 01.07.1982 and since then he is continuously working in the department. The Labour Court vide order 22.11.2004 ordered for classification of the petitioner in regular establishment. Against which, the department filed writ petition, writ appeal as well as SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which were dismissed. The petitioner has filed various representations for compliance of the order of the Labour Court, but no Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL action has been taken. The petitioner moved an application under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for arrears and the learned Labour Court issued RRC, but still arrears have not been paid. Hence, this petition.

3. Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under:

"Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government within a period not exceeding three months. Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit." 4. Admittedly, writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the same has been filed seeking execution of award. The award cannot be executed by way of a writ petition. The petitioner can avail the alternative remedy for executing the award. A similar question arose for consideration before the High Court of Uttrakhand in the case of Naveen Ram vs. State of Uttarakhan and others (W.P. No.662 of 2024) and the court vide order dated 25.04.2024 has observed as under:

"5. Petitioner instead of approaching the Labour Court for execution of award has approached this Court directly by filing the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL present writ petition seeking the aforesaid directions. The remedy to execute the award lies with the Labour Court. It needs to be mentioned at this stage that Section 11(9) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 speaks that every award made by a labour court shall be executed in accordance with the procedure laid down for execution of orders and decree of a civil court under order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This Court cannot be converted into an Executing Court for execution of award passed by the Labour Court, which is a decree for the purpose of execution and shall be executed like a decree of civil court."

5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.

However, the petitioner would be at liberty to pursue the remedy before the appropriate