This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue,_a»jwrit of certiorari and grant the respondent No.1 a;jd--V.2'4.;n.ay
be directed to implement the award passed..’VV’by’7t.he
Presiding Officer Labour Court, Guibarga o_n 22,’
in Ref. No.569/2000 vide Annexure~B an~d-»e__t’c.,,, .
This petition coming on for prAe1iii;ri4inary””hearing;in
‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following: *
The present petition a ‘Conductor who
was removed from service” for not
having issu;ed:««A;tiekets whi1e”Vihatiintgfieeliected the fare
from the on which he was on
to be proved at the
enquiry”,VVV: the /authority had imposed the
punishment V-.of’disrniss.a1 which was chaiienged before
the Courtrwhereby the petitioner had raised an
I dispute under Section 10(1)[c) of the
Ind–ust.1*ia1 iibisputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court in
illlftl allowed the petition, whereby the punishment was
set–“aside and the respondents were directed to reinstate
2 it “the petitioner by an award dated 22.04.2003. However,
2’?
it is the grievance of the petitioner that till date, the
award has not been implemented and the resiporidenits
for reasons best known, have ignored
hence, the petitioner is before t:hi”s'(“,-oiirt.
2. The matter Corning on “for orélegrs 1 in
Preliminary Hearing in “learned
Counsel for the that the
present petition is A since the
petitioner approaching the
very Labour award or to take such
eoereiye __ _~.Vma_y’ be available in law, the
petitioner” writ petition is not tenable
and”. ‘hence Court may not exercise its writ
» j’eirisdiction”~-in issuing any directions as prayed for by
. petiti’oner§s
it While it is so contended, the learned Counsel
for the respondents does not seek to explain the reasons
é
for not having implemented the award and wou1d..__insist
that the petition be dismissed as not rnaintinable
leave the petitioner to his remedies.
4. This stance on the part of
have not chosen to filestaterfient of
explain the inordinate deiaylfiandp the negation of
the award which ;_ fairour of the
petitioner is not is imperative
that the llawlard that has been
passed and the respondents
whichiis-. at undertaking, Choosing to
act in :51 seeking to take a stance as
abdlye, is wholiy. deplorable. Therefore, the respondents
‘ shall the award and implement the same at the
leariiesti ‘the respondents should fail to do so, it is
open. for the petitioner to initiate coercive measures as
“it ” available in law.
With that
disposed of.
JT/-
observation,
the petition stands
séfg; L
z%駧