HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI G.S. SINGHVI AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Appeal No.195 of 2006 Between: Sri Renuka Sugars Limited, Represented by its Law Officer, Sri Prasanth Bhadale, S/o. Manohar, aged 29 years, BC 105, Havelook Road, Contonment Belgaum, Karnataka State … Appellant And The District Cum Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Anantapur and 17 others … Respondent/s ::JUDGMENT:: Counsel for the appellant : Shri P. Veera Reddy Counsel for respondents Nos.2, 4 to 8 and 10 to 18 : Shri Tirumala Rao for Ms. Hema Jaiswal Counsel for respondent No. 9 : Shri Satish Deshpande July 13, 2007 Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ This appeal is directed against order dated 5-1-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby he dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in MP Nos. 31, 32, 89 and 96 of 2000 refusing to entertain objection to the maintainability of the applications filed by the private respondents under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The arguments were heard yesterday and the case was adjourned for today to enable Shri P. Veera Reddy to seek instructions. At the commencement of hearing, Shri P. Veera Reddy stated that he has been instructed by the appellant to withdraw the appeal. Shri Tirumala Rao and Shri Satish Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondents, say that they do not have objection. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, interim order dated 1-3-2006 passed by the Division Bench in WAMP No. 405 of 2006 is vacated and the miscellaneous petition is dismissed. While disposing of the appeal in the manner indicated above and by taking note of the fact that judicial intervention by this Court has resulted in postponement of the adjudication of the applications filed by the workmen for almost three years, we direct the concerned Tribunal to finally decide the applications within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Liberty is also given to the appellant to raise all legally permissible objections before the Tribunal. G.S. SINGHVI, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J July 13, 2007 ks