IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.10028 Of 2009 Dated: 16.09.2009 Between: Tumuluri Yesu and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND The State of A.P. Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Cooperation and others. ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order passed by the Labour Court – I (Central) at Hyderabad, ordering notice in the application seeking suspension of the order, dated 20.02.2009, whereunder the respondents 5 and 6 proposed to terminate the services of the petitioners as arbitrary and illegal. The facts in brief are as under: The writ petitioners, 20 in number, are the members of the 4th respondent – Gudivada Labour Contract Co-operative Society – and are working as handling and ancillary labourers in the godown of Food Corporation of India, Gudivada, Krishna District. After the Direct Payment System is introduced in the Food Corporation of India, while engaging the handling & ancillary labour, there was a dispute among the members of the 4th respondent society and ultimately the 3rd respondent herein by order dated 1.12.2001 directed that the petitioner herein be appointed as handling labourers under Direct Payment System. Challenging the said order, the 4th respondent filed W.P. No.25506 of 2001. The said writ petition was disposed of on 05.10.2005 with a direction to the 3rd respondent - Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies - to pass fresh orders after issuing notice to the Food Corporation of India, as well as other aggrieved parties. Thereafter, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies passed an order, dated 12.06.2006, holding that the respondents 7 to 26 herein who were seniors ought to have been taken into consideration. Though the Food Corporation of India preferred a revision before the Commissioner of Cooperation, the same was dismissed by order dated 29.12.2006. Challenging the same, the Food Corporation of India filed W.P. No.6102 of 2007. After hearing all the parties, the said writ petition was disposed of by order, dated 03.08.2007, with directions as under : “For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the petitioner shall be under obligation to respect the seniority of the members of the 3rd respondent society, in the matter of engaging handling and ancillary labour under Direct Payment System, subject to their fulfilling the conditions of eligibility stipulated under circular dated 5.11.1997. In case, any retrenchments are to result in the exercise, the affected party shall be put on notice, and be informed the circumstances, that led to the action.” Against the said order, some of the petitioners herein filed Writ Appeal No.1012 of 2007. By order dated 22.1.2009 the said writ appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellants to avail alternative remedies available against the order, dated 29.12.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societis. On 20.2.2009 some of the members of the 4th respondent society preferred an appeal before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal at Vijayawada under Section 76 (1) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, against the order, dated 12.06.2006, passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Gudivada, Krishna District, alleging that the said order was passed without notice to them. Pending the said appeal they also sought suspension of the operation of the order, dated 12.06.2006. The A.P.Co-operative Tribunal by order dated 20.02.2009 issued urgent notice to the respondents and posted the matter to 04.03.2009. In the meanwhile the Food Corporation of India (6th respondent herein) by order dated 20.2.2009 informed the petitioners herein that they are removed from the seniority list and that they are no more required in Direct Payment System, since they failed to comply with the notice date 2.2.2009 issued in terms of the order in W.P.No.6102 of 2007. Having received the said notice, the petitioners filed L.C.I.D. No.2 of 2009 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I (Central) under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 11.3.2009. Though they sought an interim order by filing Application No.54 of 2009, the Tribunal had ordered notice. Aggrieved by the said action of the Tribunal, the present writ petition is filed. While directing the notice to the respondents, this Court passed an order on 13.05.2009 as under : “ Notice before admission. Sri B.Anjaneyulu, Standing Counsel for FCI seeks time to get instructions and to file counter affidavit. Hence, post this matter after three weeks. In the meanwhile, petitioners apprehend that they would be dis-engaged through sufficient work is existing not only for one petitioners but also for respondents 7 to 26. Petitioners are prepared to give an undertaking that they shall not obstruct the work being done by the FCI through the respondents 7 to 26. If there is availability of work, the petitioners shall not be dis-engaged merely because of their seniority issue for a period of four weeks. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Food Corporation of India it is stated that pursuant to the order of this court in W.P.No.6102 of 2007 the Food Corporation of India issued notice dated 15.10.2007 and after disposal of the Writ Appeal No.1012 of 2007 a fresh notice dated 2.2.2009 was issued directing the petitioners to produce the evidence to show that they are senior most persons in the seniority list and also to show the length of total service rendered by them in a Cooperative Society or Food Corporation of India under a private contractor in respect of the said depot. Since the petitioners failed to produce any evidence, the Food Corporation of India passed the order, dated 20.02.2009 informing the petitioners that they were removed from the seniority list and they were no more required in DPS System and became in eligible to be continued further. Challenging the said order, since the petitioners have already initiated proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the same are pending before the Labour Court, the present writ petition is not maintainable. A separate counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 7 to 26 on the same lines. Heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the material on record. It is relevant to note that challenging the very same order dated 20.2.2009 passed by Food Corporation of India, the petitioners filed W.P.No.6579 of 2009. By order dated 30.03.2009 the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail appropriate remedies. Thereafter the present writ petition has been filed for an identical relief as sought in W.P.No.6579 of 2009 and a further declaration that the order of the Labour Court in ordering notice in the application for suspension as arbitrary and illegal. As a matter of fact, the Labour Court has never declined to grant interim relief but only ordered notice to the other side. Thus there was no order as such affecting the legal rights of the petitioners so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also relevant to note that in terms of the Judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1012 of 2007, petitioners have worked out the remedy of appeal before the Co-operative Societies Tribunal against the order dated 12.6.2006 which is pending. Even the order dated 20.2.2009 passed by Food Corporation of India is the subject-matter of I.D.No.2 of 2009 pending before the Labour Court. In the circumstances, it is not open to the petitioners to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as parallel proceedings. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that unless and until appropriate orders are passed as an interim measure till the proceedings are concluded before the Labour Court, the petitioners stand to suffer irretrievable injury and therefore their interest may be protected by continuing the interim order dated 13.5.2009. Though the learned counsel appearing for Food Corporation of India across the bar stated that there is sufficient work as on today to engage the petitioners herein, the same has been denied in the additional counter- affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 7 to 26. It is also relevant to note that the interim order granted by this Court on 13.5.2009 stood expired on 2.8.2009 itself and thereafter the petitioners are not being engaged by the Corporation. In the circumstances, it is for Food Corporation of India to make its own arrangements as per its need. There cannot be any directions in favour of either of parties by this court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J 16th SEPTEMBER, 2009. YVL