Labour Court has jurisdiction under the M.P. Industrial Relations Act to enforce wage recovery, and High Court's supervisory role is limited to ensuring lawful exercise of such authority.

ORDER

With the consent of parties the matters are heard finally.

2. Considering the similitude of facts of all the above cases, viz. W.P.No.7510/2007, W.P.No.7511/2007, W.P.No.7512/2007, M.P.No.6210/2018, M.P.No.6211/2018 and M.P.No.6215/2018, as in all the cases petitioner M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation has challenged the order of the Industrial Court dated 29.11.2006 (in W.P.No.7510/2007, W.P.No.7511/2007, W.P.No.7512/2007) and order dated 22.11.2018 (in M.P.No.6210/2018, M.P.No.6211/2018 and M.P.No.6215/2018), whereby the order of Labour Court dated 2.8.2005 (in W.P.No.7510/2007, W.P.No.7511/2007, W.P.No.7512/2007) and order dated 2.2.2018 (in M.P.No.6210/2018, M.P.No.6211/2018 and M.P.No.6215/2018) has been affirmed and the application of the employee workman for grant of difference amount of wages has been allowed. However, for deciding these cases, facts of M.A.No.7510/2007 are taken into consideration as a lead case.

3. The present appeal has been filed by the M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation assailing the order, annexure P/1 dated 29.11.2006 passed by the Industrial court, whereby the order dated 2.8.2005 passed by the Labour Court has been affirmed by which the application filed by the employee Workman for grant of difference of amount of wages of Rs.2,32,053/- was allowed.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 workman has filed an application under section 108 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.P.I.R. Act') before the Labour Court for recovery of the difference of amount due towards wages from the employer M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation. The learned Labour Court vide order dated 2.8.2005 has allowed the application of the respondent no.1 workman and directed the employer Corporation to pay the remaining difference amount to the workman within two months. Being aggrieved therewith, the employer Corporation has filed appeal under section 65 of the M.P.I.R. Act before the Industrial Court, Bhopal. The Industrial Court vide impugned order dated 29.11.2006 has dismissed the appeal of the employer and affirmed the order of the Labour court dated 2.8.2005. Being aggrieved therewith, the petitioner Corporation has filed this petition.

5. It has been contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the orders passed by Labour Court under Section 108 of M.P.I.R. Act and Industrial Court in appeal dated 2.8.2005, annexure P/2 and 29.11.2006, annexure P/1, respectively are illegal. It has been submitted that both the courts below have committed error of law and jurisdiction, therefore, sought for quashment of aforesaid orders. It has further been submitted that the courts below have exceeded in its jurisdiction while granting the relief as sought by the respondents under Section 108 of M.P.I.R. Act. It is contended that under the M.P.I.R. Act, such relief could not have been granted to the respondent workman because such powers and jurisdiction are not vested with the Labour Court under Section 108 of M.P.I.R. Act. It is further submitted that the orders are executing orders in nature, therefore, the proceedings ought to have been filed for execution of the earlier award and the Labour Court ought to have invoked the proceedings under execution of said award. It is submitted that Section 78A of the Act provides for execution of award and Section 63 and 64 of the Act provides for cognizance of offence and power of Labour Court and Industrial court in respect of criminal cases in proceedings initiated u/s 108 of the Act. It is further provided that in the execution proceedings the application is to be submitted in the form "OO" as prescribed. On the basis of aforesaid provisions of law, it i