IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13046 of 2007 Between: The Manohar Employees Union, (Reg. No. B-2760) Rep. by its President, C/o. 8-2-269/19/381/B Behind L.V. Prasad Eye Institute, Road No.2 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Industrial Tribunal Cum Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, Chandra Vihar, M.J. Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Manohar, Rep. by its Managing Director, Airport Exit Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records in IA No. 44 of 2006 in ID No. 65 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the ﬁrst Respondent and set aside the order dt. 2-4-2007 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.BALAGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No : 13046 of 2007 ORDER: It appears the petitioner union raised a dispute and the same was referred to the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, at Hyderabad under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter, it seems that the respondent -management had taken an objection as to the very maintainability of the reference and therefore, ﬁled I.A.No.44 of 2006 in I.D.No.65 of 2005. The said I.A. was allowed holding ﬁrstly that the president of the union is not a worker as on the date of taking up the matter by the Labour Court, secondly, the union, as required under Section 9-A of the Trade Union Act, do not have 10% of the strength as its members as on the date of ﬁling of the I.D. to enable it to raise a dispute. These facts, of course, were denied by the petitioner and without putting the same for trial and adjudication, the I.A. was allowed making the cause frustrated. 2. It is not desirable in a summary proceedings like this to take up interlocutory applications as to maintainability of the petition and decide it separately. The Labour Court ought to have decided it, even if such an objection was raised by the management along with other issues in the main I.D. itself. 3. Be that as it may, when the petitioner union has asserted that it has got more than 10% of the members to its credit, unless and until the evidence is adduced in this respect, the Labour Court ought not to have disposed of the matter. Therefore, for all these reasons, the impugned order is set-aside and the Labour Court is directed to reopen the I.D. and consider the issue raised in the I.A. as well as other issues that may arise for consideration in the main I.D. and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 08-09-2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}