IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R.DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.272 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01.10.2007 in W.P. No.16766 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: A.P. Diary Development Co.op. Federation Ltd., Lalapet, Hyderabad, represented by its Managing Director. ..... Appellant And 1. Presiding Officer, Additional Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad. 2. P. Ramulu (Died), per L.Rs R3 to R7 C/o. 2-2-1137/8/1/B/1, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad-44 3. Smt. P. Lakshmi, W/o. P. Ramulu C/o. 2-2-1137/8/1/B/1, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad-44 4. P. Vijayalakshmi D/o. Late P. Ramulu C/o. 2-2-1137/8/1/B/1, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad-44 5. P. Saritha D/o. Late P. Ramulu C/o. 2-2-1137/8/1/B/1, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad-44 6. P. Sreedhar S/o. Late P. Ramulu C/o. 2-2-1137/8/1/B/1, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad-44 7. Satyanarayana S/o. Late P. Ramulu C/o. 2-2-1137/8/1/B/1, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad-44 .....Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Sri M. Dilip Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7: Sri B.G. Ravinder Reddy The Court passed the following: JUDGMENT: (per R. Subhash Reddy, J.) This writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed by A.P. Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd. (for short ‘the Federation’) aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 1.10.2007 in WVMP.No.2048 of 2006 in WPMP.No.21004 of 2006 and WPMP.No.25562 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.16766 of 2006. One P. Ramulu was working as a Dairy Attendant in the Federation. On the charge of misconduct of unauthorised absence, after conducting enquiry, he was dismissed from service by order dated 15.9.2000. The said order of dismissal was challenged before the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad in I.D.No.30 of 2001. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, the employee, P. Ramulu died leaving wife and children as his legal representatives. The Tribunal, by award dated 27.6.2005, while setting aside the order of dismissal, directed the Federation to pass an order of reinstatement into service in the name of the deceased employee from the date of his removal from service i.e. 15.9.2000 with continuity of service and attendant benefits. Assailing the validity of the award, the Federation has filed the writ petition. Initially, a learned Single Judge of this Court, had granted ad interim order on 11th August, 2006. When an application was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased employee, the impugned order is passed making the earlier interim order absolute subject to the condition that the appellant Federation deposits pension and retirement benefits within a period of four weeks and permitted the legal heirs to withdraw this amount without furnishing any security. In this writ appeal, it is submitted by the learned counsel, Sri M. Dilip Rao appearing for the appellant that as much as the very validity of the award is challenged before the learned Single Judge, at this stage, if respondent Nos.2 to 7 are permitted to withdraw the entire amount, it is not possible to recover the same in the event of the appellant succeeding in the writ petition. It is further submitted that the very relief granted by the Tribunal is not permissible and the award is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, Sri B.G. Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 7 submitted that as much as the employee rendered more than 30 years of service and in any event, he is entitled for the benefit of payment of gratuity in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act and the legal heirs are entitled to the retirement benefits as ordered by the learned Single Judge, and there are no grounds to interfere. As much as the very validity of the award is under challenge in the writ petition, we are prima facie of the view that unless the writ petition is decided, the entire amount cannot be permitted to be withdrawn. As the employee was dismissed from service only on the ground of unauthorised absence, prima facie, we are also of the view that he is entitled for gratuity. Further, as the writ petition is pending, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ appeal by expediting the writ petition and modifying the order of the learned Single Judge to the following effect: 1) The award of the Tribunal passed in I.D.No.30 of 2001 shall remain stayed pending disposal of the writ petition subject to the condition of the appellant depositing the entire amount due as per the relief granted by the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today to the credit of I.D.No.30 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad. 2) Respondent Nos.2 to 7 are entitle to withdraw 1/4th out of the total amount deposited by the appellant Federation, without furnishing any security. 3) The Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, shall take steps to deposit the remaining 3/4th amount in an interest-bearing fixed deposit in a nationalised bank for a period of one year initially. The amount to be deposited and withdrawn by respondent Nos.2 to 7 shall be subject to final orders in the writ petition. Subject to the above directions and modification, the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. The Registry is directed to list the writ petition for final hearing before the learned Single Judge in the second week of June, 2008. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 24th March, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. …..REGISTRAR ARS