Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sohrab Khan v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 8567 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 2682 (19 February 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


 Court No.21

    Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8567 of 2007

Sohrab Khan         .....  Petitioner


State of U.P & others .....  Respondents


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to comply the judgement and order dated 15.1.1998 in adjudication case No. 22 of 1996.  

The petitioner's case is that an award was made in his favour on 30.8.1997.  The copy of which award has been filed as annexure 1 to the writ petition.  The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that  date mentioned in the prayer as 15.1.1998 is the incorrect date and the correct date of the award is 30.8.1997.  He submits that against the said award the writ petition was filed by employers which was dismissed for non prosecution.  The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the award has not yet been complied and has prayed for a mandamus from this Court.  From perusal of the order of this Court dated 15.12.1999 annexure 2  passed in writ petition No.19036 of 1998 filed by employer,  it is clear that this Court observed that there being no interim order in the writ petition, it is    open for execution of the award before the proper  authority.

According to the petitioner, the said writ petition has been subsequently dismissed for want of prosecution.  The U.P Industrial Disputes Act 1947 contain the provisions and machinery  for enforcement  of an award of the Labour Court.  The petitioner ought to take steps for enforcement of the award as provided under the U.P Industrial Disputes Act 1947.  The writ petition for issuing a mandamus to comply the award cannot be entertained, there being ample remedy under the Industrial Dispute Act.

With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed.

Date 19.2.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.