Hari Nath Tilhari, J.@mdashThis is a Civil Revision petition arising out under Section 115 CPC against the judgment and order dated 2C11993, passed by XIth Additional District Judge, Lucknow, in Misc. case NO, 110/1992, State of U.P. v. Kamal Deep Kaur.
2. The learned District Judge allowed the objection of the prescribed Officer to the effect that the application for execution moved by the revisionist applicant for execution of the order of Tribunals made before it was not entertainable by and maintainable before the court i.e. in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Lucknow in view of the provisions of U.P. Public Service Tribunal Act, 1976.
3. Shri B.K. Makkar, Advocate, the learned counsel for the revisionist, submitted that in this case, the learned court below after having taken erroneous view on the question of his jurisdiction has illegally refused to entertain and to proceed with the application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to Section 5(7) of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976. The Section 5 of the Act provides for power and procedure of the Tribunal. Subsection 7 reads as under:
�(7) Where the Tribunal makes as order other than a declaration referred to in subsection (6), in favour of any party and such order remains uncomplied with for a period of three months from the date of such order, the Tribunal may, on the application of the party in whose favour the order stands, issue a certificate for recovery of the amount awarded or, as the case may be, for any other relief granted by the Tribunal. Any party, in whose favour such certificate is issued, may apply to the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in Uttar Pradesh within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the employee is for the time being serving, or, as the case may be, last served such employer, for execution of the order of the Tribunal, and such Court shall thereupon execute the certificate or cause the same to be executed in the same manner and by the same procedure as if it were a decree for like relief passed by itself in a suit.�
5. A perusal of Subsection 7 per se, and in particular the expression that �the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in Uttar Pradesh within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the employee is for the time being serving, or, as the case may be, last served such employer, for execution of the order of Tribunal, and such Court shall thereupon execute the certificate or cause the same to be executed in the same manner and by the same procedure as if it were a decree for like relief passed by itself in a suit� and the use of the above expression including the expression �of such court� indicates that after having got the certificate from the Tribunal, the decreeholder or the person in whose favour the order has been made by the Tribunal can apply before the court within the territorial jurisdiction of which the employee has been working at the time of moving of the application for enforcing the award or order passed in the Claim Petition by the Tribunal or before the Court within the territorial limits of whose jurisdiction the employee concerned last served i.e. in the case of determination of his service prior to his claim being decreed by the trial court or every case where the application is to be moved after determination of his employment before the court within whose territorial jurisdiction, the employee has last served on the date of determination.
6. In this view of the matter and, particularly, in his view that the revisionist applicant had been serving at Allahabad under the employer in the present case at the time the termination order was passed against him and he had last served at Allahabad, application for execution of the case should have been moved before the Civil Court or the learned District Judge''s Court in Allahabad.
7. In view of the matter I am of the opinion that the Courts at Lucknow had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner''s application for execution and thus the court below did not commit any error of law or its jurisdiction by holding that it had no jurisdiction to proceed with the execution. In this view of the matter, the impugnedorder does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or error of law, in view of the law laid down in Jay Chand v, Kamalakshe (AIR 1949 Privy Council page 239 or the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases subsequent to the Privy Council, K. Khamaria v. R.K. Chamirya reported in AIR 1953 SC 23 and Chaubey Jagdish Prarad v. Ganga Prasad Chaubey reported in AIR 1959 SC 492.
8. Thus considered, the revision has got no merit, it is, therefore, dismissed.
(Revision dismissed.)
