Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53808 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9789 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Respondent :- Dy Labour Commissioner Prayagraj Region Prayagraj And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jamal Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Prayagraj passed an award in favour of the petitioner on 31.03.2023. 2. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, Respondent No. 3/ U.P. State Road Transport Corporation preferred a writ petition before this Court being Writ C No. 27330 of 2023 (Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh and Another). In the said writ petition, present petitioner was also arrayed as one of the respondent. The writ petition was duly entertained and the petitioner (respondent in that writ petition) was granted ten days' time to file counter affidavit. 3. Pleadings have already been exchanged in the said writ petition but since no interim order has been granted in that writ petition, a prayer has been made to execute an award dated 31.03.2023. 4. A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri S.K, Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3 that instant writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as in case the petitioner is aggrieved for non compliance of the order passed by the Labour Court, it is always open for him to have said order executed by filing an appropriate application before the Labour Court itself and there cannot be any occasion for this Court to exercise powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to have an order of Labour Court to be executed. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From perusal of record it transpires that the reliefs, as prayed for in the instant petition, pertain to the compliance of the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Prayagraj when the petitioner is already have an order in his favour as passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Prayagraj, as alleged by him in the instant petition, consequently, the writ Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not expected to have an order of Labour Court complied with more particularly when the petitioner should have a remedy of having the said order complied with. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the preliminary objection as raised by learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3 is upheld. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue other remedies that may be available to him under law for execution of the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court Prayagraj. Needless to say, in case such representation is filed by the petitioner before the court concerned, he will decide the same, expeditiously. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Swati Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad