IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 200 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 20/10/2008 in WP NO : 9644 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: L.V.Prasad Eye Institute, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Chandravihar, Hyderabad. 2 Mr.D.Prakash, Sr.Cafeteria Assistant, H.No.8-2-269/350-A, Indira Nagar, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MS.G.SUDHA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Balagopal Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No :200 of 2009 Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy,J) This writ appeal is filed against order dated 20.10.2008 in W.V.M.P. No. 3123 of 2007 and W.P.M.P. No. 1224 of 2006 in Writ Petition No. 9644 of 2006, whereby the learned single Judge made the interim order dated 7.6.2006 absolute. For the purpose of the disposal of this writ appeal, which arises out of an interlocutory order, the detailed facts need not be recorded. It will suffice to note that the removal of respondent No.2 from service during pendency of conciliation proceedings was not approved by the Labour Court under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). The appellant, therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 9644 of 2006, and in the said writ petition, this Court passed interim order of suspension of the findings of the Labour Court by its order dated 7.6.2006. On the vacate stay application filed by respondent No.2, this Court, by the order under appeal, while making the said interim order absolute, directed the appellant to comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act and to pay wages to respondent No.1 as per the provisions of the said Act on or before 10th of every succeeding month. This Court also directed the respondents to pay the arrears of wages under Section 17-B of the Act from the date of the order of the Labour Court till 31.10.2008, within a period of six weeks. Ms. G. Sudha, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submitted that as the main writ petition in which the legality or otherwise of the Award of the Labour Court is still pending and the legal issues raised therein are required to be adjudicated, the appellant is prepared to pay the wages to respondent No.2 from the month of March, 2009. Having regard to the facts of the case, we are of the view that interest of justice would be met if the offer of the appellant is accepted by permitting it to pay the wages to respondent No.2 from March, 2009, pending the writ petition. The entitlement of respondent No.2 to the arrears of wages will depend upon the outcome of the writ petition. Accordingly, the order under appeal is modified and the writ appeal is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.A.M.P. No.436 of 20029 filed by the appellant for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 5th March, 2009 __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J pnb