THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 5014 of 2010 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 01.05.2010, passed by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the appeal in C.M.A. No. 779 of 2010, filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Malkajgiri, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 879 of 2009 in O.S. No. 290 of 2009, filed by the petitioner praying to grant ex parte ad interim injunction order. The learned counsel for the petitioner-trade union submitted that the respondent-company with a mala fide intention to close down its operations and sell away its properties, has introduced VRS and also transferred the workers who refused to take VRS to other units. Questioning the said mala fide action of the respondent-company, the petitioner-trade union initiated conciliation proceedings before the labour authorities, and while the said conciliation proceedings are pending adjudication, the petitioner states that the respondent is trying to alienate the properties, and if the respondent succeeds in its attempts, then the members of the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, the petitioner filed suit for injunction, along with the present application, praying to grant ex parte ad interim injunction, restraining the respondent from alienating its properties, pending adjudication of the conciliation proceedings, but both the trial Court and appellate Court, committed a grave error in refusing to grant the same. Hence, he prayed that the order under revision be set aside the ad interim injunction be granted. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision, passed by the appellate Court, which confirmed the order of the trial Court. According to the own admission of the petitioner, aggrieved by the action of the respondent in introducing VRS and transferring its members, they have initiated conciliation proceedings before the labour authorities, which are pending adjudication. Once the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent are seized of by the labour authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it would not be proper for this Court to grant ad interim injunction as prayed for, for the reason that if the petitioner succeed in the conciliation proceedings initiated by them before the labour authorities, they can seek enforcement of the orders that may be passed by them in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, takes care of the protection of the rights of the workers, and having regard to the fact that the conciliation proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the alleged mala fide action of the respondent, are pending before the labour authorities, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the appellate Court, confirming the order passed by the trial Court, refusing to grant ad interim injunction as prayed for by the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the C.R.P., and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 14th December, 2010 KSR