IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 35694 of 1998 Between: 1 The Executive Engineer, RW & M Divn., Cuddapah. 2 The Chief Engineer, Mechanical Manoranjan Buildings, 1st Floor, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Secretary to Govt., I & CAD Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Syed Fakrumaiah, Brodipet, Guntur. R1 Dismissed for Default Vide Court Order dt. 4/4/2002 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Anantapur. .....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 issue an Appropriate Writ, order or direction more Particularly one in the Nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to MP.15/94 dated 26/06/1997 on the file of Labour Court, Anantapur and quash the same as illegal and opposed to I.D.Act and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER : Heard the learned Asst. Government Pleader for Irrigation appearing for the petitioner. This writ petition has been instituted calling in question the correctness and the validity of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in MP No. 13, 14 and 15 of 1994, dated 20.6.1997. M.P. No. 15 of 1994 has been instituted by one Sri Syed Fakrumaiah claiming the differential wages. The application was moved under Section 33(C) 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, has been enquired into and the same was allowed. As a result, a sum of Rs. 19,004.50 ps being the difference of wages for the period from 26.10.1976 to 30.6.1982 has been ordered to be paid. Unfortunately though the said Syed Fakrumaiah has been impleaded in the writ petition, for want of proper address, notices were not served in this case. Since no steps have been taken, this writ petition has been dismissed as against him and consequently he is not a party to the present writ petition. Since the award passed by the Labour Court which is in his favour is sought to be interdicted he is not only a proper party but is also a necessary party to this writ petition. In the absence of service of notice on him, the matter cannot be proceeded with at all. After nearly ten years of pendency, I see no reason why the said writ petition should be kept pending any further for completing the service on the said individual now. This apart, the Labour Court had appreciated carefully the evidence that was marshaled before it and came to the conclusion that the differential wages are liable to be paid to the petitioners there before it. Even assuming that the viewpoint canvassed by the petitioners herein is also a possible view in the matter, the view taken by the Labour Court cannot be characterized as an impossible or an absurd view. Where two views are possible and if one of them has been chosen by the Labour Court, it is inappropriate for this Court to substitute its opinion for that of the Labour Court. For this reason, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and is accordingly dismissed. But, however, without costs. ----------------------------------- N.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J Knk Dt : 27.2.2008 ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RAGHU}