Court No. - 47
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18657 of 2019 Petitioner :- Abhimanyu And 11 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Narain,Shyam Narain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
The petitioners' services were terminated by respondent No.2 w.e.f. 1.3.1990. They raised an industrial dispute that was referred to the Labour Court under Section 2K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court dealt with the matter arising out of various references by different workmen, who are in multiple number here also, that include Adjudication Case Nos.358, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 348, 349, 350, 370, 371, 372, 373 and 374 of 1992. All of them were decided by a common award dated 31.10.2011 by which relief of reinstatement and back wages was refused and instead a lump- sum compensation was awarded. The petitioners challenged the award before this Court by means of Writ C-No.33432 of 2012 whereby the writ petition aforesaid was partly allowed, and in modification the award, it was ordered that the petitioners shall be reinstated with 50% back wages. The lump-sum compensation paid to the petitioners by the employers was directed to be adjusted. The grievance of the petitioners is that the order of this Court has not been complied with somuch so that neither the petitioners have been reinstated or the back wages paid. The petitioners have made an application under Section 6H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which has been registered as R.D. Case No.2 of 2018.
Heard Sri Sudhanshu Narain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.K. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Sri Sudhanshu Narain, learned counsel for the petitioners has come up with two prayers. The first prayer cannot be granted for the reason that a mandamus cannot be issued for the enforcement of a judgment of this Court. The remedy lies elsewhere. So far as the second relief is concerned, it is the duty of the Deputy Labour Commissioner to expeditiously dispose of the application under Section 6H(1) of the Act, and in sitting over the matter, the Deputy Labour Commissioner is in breach of his statutory duties.
Accordingly, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur is ordered to decide pending application under Section 6H(1) of the Act, filed by the petitioner giving rise to R.D. Case No.2 of 2018 under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
This petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid orders. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 NSC