IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos:11360 and 11361 of 1994 WRIT PETITION NO:11360 of 1994 Between: Azam Jahi Mills, Warangal rep. by General Manager A Unit of National Textile Corpn. (APKK&M) Ltd. ..... PETITIONER AND 1Controlling Authority the Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Warangal-II 2The Collector, Warangal Dist. Warangal 3The Joint Collector, Warangal 4Kishtaiah S/o Veeraiah C/o T. Bhupal H.No.12/3/32, P.P. Chaman, Warangal 5Syed Manzur Hussain S/o Syed Muskin Hussain 6Kolluri Mallaiah S/o Ramaiah 7Md. Layak Hussain S/o yousuf Hussain C/o P. Sudarshan Reddy, Warangal 8R. Sailu C/o Saudarshan Reddy Warangal 9Rangu Veeraswamy C/o P. Sudarshan Reddy, Warangal .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.KAMALAKAR Counsel for the Respondents:NONE APPEARED WRIT PETITION NO:11361 of 1994 Between: Azam Jahi Mills, Warangal. ..... PETITIONER AND Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. P.KAMALAKAR Counsel for the Respondents:NONE APPEARED The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions, which raised identical issues, are heard and disposed of together. The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’) and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Warangal, entertained the applications filed by the private respondents for payment of gratuity. The petitioner raised an objection regarding jurisdiction of the said authority to entertain the applications and pass orders under the provisions of the Act on the ground that it being a branch of National Textile Corporation Limited, it is the Central Government, which is the appropriate Government to decide the cases arising under the Act. The said objection was rejected on the purported ground that in similar cases, the authority had earlier gone into the merits of the said objection and rejected the same. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed appeals before the appellate authority along with stay applications. The appellate authority returned the two appeals on the ground that they were not accompanied by the certificate of deposit as prescribed under the Act as a pre-condition for maintaining the appeals. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present writ petitions. At the hearing, Sri P.Kamalakar, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that in Writ Petition No.11959 of 1990 filed by the petitioner against an identical order, this Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority and Assistant Commissioner of Labour to entertain the applications for payment of gratuity and decide the same under the provisions of the Act and that Writ Appeal filed against the said order was dismissed on the short ground that the applicants - workmen, in whose favour the order was passed by the authority, were not impleaded. Sri P.Kamalakar, learned counsel tried to persuade this Court to decide this case independent of order, dated 26.02.2001 passed in Writ Petition No.11959 of 1990. I have considered his request and I have not felt persuaded to accept the same. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge in the said case shows that he has considered in detail the contention put forth by the petitioner on the purported lack of jurisdiction of the authority and by giving detailed reasons on the basis of the case laws, held that the authority had jurisdiction to entertain the applications and pass orders thereon. As this order being the one delivered by a Coordinate Bench and as I have no reason to differ with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge, there is no need for this Court to adjudicate the case de hors the said order. Therefore, I respectfully follow the view of the learned Single Judge and dismiss these writ petitions with liberty to the petitioner either to question this order in a Writ Appeal or to pursue it’s appeals already filed before the appellate authority on merits. As a sequel to dismissal of main petitions, WPMP.Nos.13776 and 13775 of 1994 in WP.No.11360 of 1994 and WPMP.Nos.13778 and 13777 of 1994 in WP.No.11361 of 1994 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th NOVEMBER, 2008. Note: issue copy in one (1) week. B/o kvni