IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23991 of 2006 Dated 18th November, 2006 Between V.Harihara Rao …..Petitioner and The Chairman cum President Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour court, Anantapur, and anr. …Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 23991 OF 2006 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed questioning the order dated 01-05-2006 passed in I.A.No. 105 of 2006 in M.P.No. 9 of 2006 by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. The petitioner herein was the applicant in M.P.No. 9 of 2006, which was filed under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming an amount of Rs.81,771/- representing arrears of salary for the period from 13-06-2001 to 30-06-2002. The said petition was allowed ex parte, by awarding the said amount with interest at 9% per annum. It is stated that the total amount as ordered by the Tribunal below was already paid, but however, the interest was not paid. As such, the petitioner/applicant filed EP claiming interest awarded by the Tribunal below. In the above said MP, the second respondent-management of Chittoor Cooperative Sugar Factory Limited has filed I.A.No. 105 of 2006 under Section 11(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to set aside the ex parte order. By the impugned order, the said IA was allowed. In this Writ Petition, it is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that there was no reason at all to set aside the ex parte order passed by the Tribunal below in M.P.No. 9 of 2006 at this stage. It is to be seen, in the affidavit filed in support of the said IA, it is stated that due to demise of earlier Managing Director, there was in- charge managing directors for a long time. It is further stated that even the advocate, who was representing the management before the Tribunal died due to cardiac problem. In view of the reasons stated in the affidavit, the Tribunal below exercised its discretion and allowed the said application. Further, it is to be noted that while allowing the said IA, the main petition was also posted for enquiry, as much as the management already filed counter affidavit in the main petition. In view of the reasons stated by the management in its affidavit, the Tribunal below rightly exercised discretion vested in it while setting aside the ex parte order. I do not find any valid ground, which warrants interference in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ------------------------------ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY DATED:18-11-2006 Msnr