N.K.Mitra, C.J. and D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The preliminary objection taken by Mr. Vivek Saran, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1. 2 and 3 is that the appeal is not maintainable under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules. He pointed out that in the writ petition, the relief sought for, was in respect of an award passed by the labour court. Therefore, in view of the provisions provided in Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, such appeal is not maintainable against an order of a single Judge passed in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of an award passed by the tribunal.
(2.) Mr. B. N. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, however, pointed out that it was not an award which was challenged in the writ petition. He pointed out that it was the duty of the State Government to lodge appropriate complaint for non-implementation of an award by the respondent who is bound by the award. According to him, as contemplated in Section 14A of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cognizance can only be taken in terms of Section 16 of the said Act only on a report of the District Magistrate or by any officer other than a District Magistrate with the previous sanction in writing of the District Magistrate. Thus, cognizance can be taken only on the basis of a complaint lodged by the District Magistrate. The petitioner/appellant seeks mandamus on the authorities to discharge their statutory duty cast upon them under Section 14A read with Section 16 of the said Act. Therefore, it had no relation with the award. The award is not a subject-matter in the writ petition or the appeal. It was a subject-matter of the proceeding before the labour court but not in these proceedings.
(3.) We have heard both the learned counsel at length.;