G.S.SINGHVI, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to comply with the award dated May 24, 1993 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon, in Reference Case No. 284 of 1989. Another prayer made by the petitioner is for issue of a direction to respondent No. 1 to sanction prosecution of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for non-compliance of the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court.
(2.) IN short, the case of the petitioner is that while he was serving as a Helper on daily wages in the service of the Haryana Tourism Corporation Limited, the employer terminated his service with effect from November 30, 1988 without holding a proper and fair enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice, He raised a dispute against the termination of his service. The Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon. After considering the rival cases, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court held that the termination of the service of the workman (Petitioner) was illegal and unjustified and that he was entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and full back wages. The petitioner submitted his joining report on July 23, 1993 before the Divisional Manager and prayed for being allowed to discharge his duties. When respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not comply with the award, he made an application before the Labour Inspector, Rewari, for getting the award implemented. He also filed a compliant before the Labour Commissioner to sanction prosecution of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Petitioner has stated that all his efforts to secure implementation of the award have proved futile and, therefore, appropriate directions be issued by this Court. In his reply, respondent No. 1 has pleaded that the allegation of the petitioner to the effect that respondent No. 1 has not taken any step for compliance of the award is not correct. In fact, he had written letter (Annexure R. 1) dated March 29, 1994, to implement the award immediately. In their separate reply, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have stated that office order dated April 18, 1994 has been issued for compliance of the award dated May 24, 1993. It has also been stated that on account of availability of alternative remedy under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947) as also under Section 29 of the said Act, this Court should not entertain the petition.
(3.) A replication to the reply of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 has been filed by the petitioner wherein he has stated that the respondents have not taken steps for his reinstatement on his old post and have not paid him full back wages.;