IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3803 of 2008 Between: Coal Mines Provident Fund Employees Union, a Registered Trade Union bearing Registration No.2367/95 having its Registered Office at H.No.3/16-79, Nehru Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, rep by its President P.C.Ramakrishnayya. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Central Govt., Indutrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad, rep. by its Presiding Officer 2 Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation having its Headquarters at Jagjivan Nagar, Dhanbad, through its Commissioner 3 Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation Regional Office, Kothapet, Hyderabad, Rep by its Regional Commissioner .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamu declaring the action of the 1st respondent in refusing to entertain the Execution Petition vide N.Dis.No.S/121/2007 dated 19-2-2008 filed by the petitioner under sec. 11-B of I.D.Act 1947 to execute the agreement dated 31.1.2006 as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to entertain the said execution petition and direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to forthwith pay salaries to the members of the petitioner union from July 2007 onwards by permitting them to report for duty forthwith at Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.HANUMANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents:MR.M.GANGA RAO (SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is an Employees Union of Coal Mines Provident Fund, Hyderabad. In relation to the shifting of the office of Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation from Hyderabad to Godavarikhani, disputes and thereafter, a settlement came into existence. A memorandum of settlement with the participation of Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Godavarikhani, representative of the Union and representative of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization, has come into existence on 31.01.2006. Complaining that the settlement was violated in some respects and not implemented in others, the petitioner filed an Execution Petition under Section 11-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad. The Tribunal returned the E.P., through its endorsement, dated 19.02.2008, on the ground that the E.P. is not maintainable. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Sri D.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the settlement is very clear in its terms and that the Tribunal is conferred with the power to execute the same under Section 11-B of the Act. He contends that there was no justification for the Tribunal in returning the E.P. Sri M.Ganga Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the enforceability of the settlement itself is at stake and at any rate, the E.P. filed by the petitioner is not in order. He contends that no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Tribunal. Though it is submitted that the settlement, referred to above, is not enforceable as of now, let it be proceeded that the settlement is binding on both the parties. Section 11-B of the Act empowers the Tribunal to execute the settlement, as though it is a decree passed by a civil Court. Had it been a case where the petitioner just wanted the execution of the settlement by pointing out the violations thereof, an occasion would have arisen for the Tribunal to verify the same. The prayer in the E.P. is somewhat different, and in a way uncertain. It reads as under; “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to execute the agreement of 31.01.2006 by lifting the locking of the office, shifting the records and equipments from Godavarikhani to Hyderabad, allow the petitioner Union Members to work at Hyderabad, pay the salaries due from July, 2007 to December, 2007 and January, 2008; and also direct the ALC (C) Mancherial to proceed against the respondents under Section 29 of ID Act, 1947 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” The reliefs, under Section 11-B of the Act on the one hand and Section 29 of the Act on the other, have been mixed up. Further, it was not a case of seeking execution simplicitor. The petitioner itself indicated several steps, such as shifting of records and locking of the office etc. Therefore, it cannot be said that the E.P. filed by the petitioner accords with law. In that view of the matter, the return of the E.P. cannot be found fault with. This, however, does not preclude the petitioner from presenting a fresh application in proper form. As and when the same is filed, the Tribunal shall examine the same and take necessary steps, and in case it refuses to entertain, it shall pass a reasoned order. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.25.03.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Note:Furnish C.C. in three days. (B/o) GJ To 1 The Presiding Officer, Central Govt., Indutrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad, 2 The Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation having its Headquarters at Jagjivan Nagar, Dhanbad, 3 The Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation Regional Office, Kothapet, Hyderabad, 4.2CD copies