THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.810 OF 2002 DATED 9TH APRIL, 2010 BETWEEN M/s.Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Rep. by its Dy.General Manager Sri Sanjib Choudhary , S/o Ashutosh Choudhary, Visakhapatnam. … Petitioner And Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. And Another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.810 OF 2002 ORDER: M/s.Hindustan Zinc Limited, Visakhapatnam, seeks a writ of prohibition against the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, from proceeding further with I.D. No.73 of 2001 pending on its file. The petitioner company stopped operations in its Lead Plant at Visakhapatnam pursuant to the directions issued by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board and the Government of India. Thereupon, the petitioner company issued Circular dated 26.12.2000 advising its workmen to opt for voluntary retirement. In response thereto, 172 workmen and employees opted for voluntary retirement, including the second respondent herein. While so, the Government of India exercising powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’) made a reference of a dispute in this regard to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, which was taken on file as I.D. No.44 of 2001. The second respondent separately invoked Section 2-A(2) of the Act of 1947 challenging his alleged forced and coerced resignation from service dated 24.01.2001. Aggrieved by the volte-face of the second respondent in accepting voluntary retirement and thereafter approaching the Labour Court, the petitioner company approached this Court by way of the present writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition to interdict further proceedings in I.D. No.73 of 2001 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. By order dated 23.01.2002, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings in the said I.D. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner company brought to my notice that the connected cases filed by the second respondent and others were disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court in a decision reported in I.L.NAIDU v. UNION OF INDIA[1] and that the issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the said decision. I have perused the Judgment aforestated. The learned Judge having considered the matter at length therein opined that the scope of the application of the workman under Section 2-A(2) of the Act of 1947 was distinct and dissimilar from the scope of the reference made by the Government of India under Section 10 of the Act of 1947. The learned Judge further held that the Labour Court would have the competence and authority to adjudicate upon the issues which would arise in a petition filed under Section 2-A(2) of the Act of 1947 and therefore it could not be said that the Court has no jurisdiction, whereby a writ of prohibition could issue. In view of the authoritative pronouncement on these aspects in the aforestated Judgment, this writ petition merits no further consideration and is accordingly dismissed. The interim stay granted by this Court on 23.01.2002 stands vacated and the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, shall proceed with further hearing of I.D. No.73 of 2001 pending on its file and dispose of the same expeditiously. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 9TH APRIL, 2010. VGSR [1] 2003 (2) ALT 470