IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.19859 of 2004 Between: John Anand, The Colliery Manager and others … Petitioners And Sri gundaboina Beeraiah and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.19859 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed assailing the award dated 15.04.2004 passed in I.D. No.98 of 2003 by the learned Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, filed WPMP. No.29056 of 2009 praying this Court to post the writ petition out of turn for hearing. When this WPMP has been taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the first respondent brought to the notice of this Court about the averments made at paras 5 and 6, which read as under: “5. I submit that in the recent past for amicable settlement in similar cases of unauthorized absenteeism, a Lok Adalat was organized for settlement of cases relating to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad. In the said Lok Adalat, the Management gave certain proposals which were duly accepted by the workmen and accordingly consent Award was passed under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act 1987. Aslo this Hon’ble Court in w\W.P. No.23083 of 2006 passed order on similar lines of Lok Adalat. Copis of Lok Adalat Award and Order dated 09-04-2008 in W.P. No.23083 of 2006 are filed herewith as Material Paper. 6. I further submit that his case is also similar and can be disposed of accordingly. I submit that unless direction to post the Writ Petition for passing Order as done in similar cases, it will cause immense loss and injury to the Petitioner Company.” He also brought to the notice of this Court about the order passed in a similar case in W.P. No.23083 of 2006 on 09.04.2008, which reads as under: “During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners filed W.P.M.P. No.3734 of 2008, stating that a dispute identical to the one between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent was resolved by the Lok Adalat and that the 2nd respondent has also made a request that he be extended the same benefit. Agreeing to extend the benefit, the petitioners had incorporated certain terms in the affidavit filed in support of the W.P.M.P. It was ultimately prayed that the writ petition be disposed of, interms of the conditions mentioned in paragraph 5 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has also expressed his consent for the same. This Court had ordered W.P.M.P. No.3734 of 2008 on 26.02.2008. The result is that the award impugned in the writ petition stands set aside and the dispute between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent stands settled, in accordance with the terms incorporated in the affidavit. Therefore, nothing remains to be decided in this writ petition, and it is, accordingly, closed. There shall be no order as to costs.” In view of the above, the learned standing counsel submitted that they are prepared to take the first respondent/workman into service and this writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at in similar case referred to above. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the impugned order in the writ petition is set aside and this writ petition is disposed of, in terms of the settlement arrived at in similar case i.e. W.P. No.23083 of 2006. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: March 3rd, 2010 LSK