The petitioner sought execution of a lower court award. The Hon'ble Court held that a writ would not lie for execution under the Industrial Disputes Act as provided relief exists there. The petitioner was directed to pursue available legal remedies.
Petitioner directed to pursue remedy for execution under law; Writ petition disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 13
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39140 of 2009
Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- V.S. Rajpoot,Krishna Dev Mishra,Ramanuj Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
The petitioner is claiming execution of the award of the lower court dated 9.4.2004 under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . There is provision to get award executed under the said Act itself and for this purpose writ would not lie, however, this Court vide order dated 31st July, 2009 directed to District Magistrate, Bulandshahar to take necessary steps to execute the award.
Writ petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to pursue such remedy as available in law to get the award executed.
Order Date :- 25.5.2018
Sanjeev
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this Court can intervene to direct execution of the lower court award under the Industrial Disputes Act when civil remedy is available.
Chandra Prakash
State Of U.P.
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
