IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI ON THE 5^th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 WRIT PETITION No. 4896 of 2007 Between:-

RAJKISHORE VISHWAKARMA S/O SHRI L.VISHWAKARMA 877,LOK SADAN, SNED NAGAR, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI P.C. CHANDAK, ADVOCATE )

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH TH.-LABOUR COMMISSIONER NEW MOTI BUNGLOW, M.G.ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. THE COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORP., JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SACHIN JAIN, PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 AND SHRI ARPAN PAWAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )

This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while praying for following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner on the post of machine-men and grant him benefit of same pay-scale which he was drawing at the time of termination of his services, as revised from time to time.

(ia) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to make payment of difference of salary along with interest @ 15% per annum from the date when monthly salary became due till its actual date of payment.

Signature Not Verified As detailed in the petition, the petitioner herein challenged his termination by raising a dispute before the Labour Court which ensued in passing of an award dated 12.09.2003, by which the petitioner herein was directed to be reinstated back in service and as the said award was not being complied with, the petitioner filed this petition while praying the abovementioned reliefs.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though during pendency of the petition, petitioner has been reinstated vide order dated 24.02.2010 filed alongwith the return as Annexure R 2/1. However, even upon reinstatement in the year 2010, the wages which were admissible in the year 1998 were paid to the petitioner in the year 2010. Thus, counsel for the petitioner submits that he was entitled for arrears of wages as revised from time to time, commensurating with the post while taking into consideration the principle of similar pay for similar work. The counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the judgement in the case of Durjan Ahirwar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2016 (3) MPLJ 145 submits that in view of the subsequent events, the respondents are now duty bound to calculate and pay the wages with arrears applicable from time to time to the petitioner.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that this petition precisely has been filed seeking execution of the award passed by the Labour Court vide order dated 12.09.2003, therefore, the writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised inasmuch as, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy to approach the competent Court seeking execution of award, therefore, the petition itself is not maintainable. The counsel further contends that the respondents in due compliance of award dated 12.09.2003 has already reinstated the petitioner in service vide order dated 24.02.2010, therefore, nothing survives to be adjudicated so far as this petition is concerned Signature Not Verified and accordingly has prayed that no interference is warranted.

Having heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the record.

To consider the claim of the petitioner, it is relevant to deal with the award passed in favour of the petitioner dated 12.09.2003. The operative paragraph of the award reveals that the petitioner herein was directed to be reinstated in service. Though, the petitioner has been reinstated, however the petitioner was paid wages at the rates which were prevalent in the year 1998. The respondents have made an attempt to establish that the award passed by the Labour Court has been duly complied with and the wages/arrears of salary have also been paid to the petitioner. However,