Petitioner sought mandamus for execution of a Labour Court award. The court held the remedy lies under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioner free to pursue that statutory remedy.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45555
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3304 of 2025
Petitioner :- Ramu Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamala Kant,Vidya Dhar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Devesh Vikram
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Shri Vidya Dhar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2-4.
The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus upon the respondents to execute the Labour Court award. The remedy lies elsewhere under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for execution of the Labour Court award.
The writ petition is dismissed.
It is open to the petitioner to invoke the appropriate remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Vandit
Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking mandamus for execution of a Labour Court award is maintainable when remedy lies under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramu Chauhan
State Of U.P.
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
