IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURALBE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.9211 of 2008 Between: The Deputy Executive Engineer, FLR Survey Sub-Division, Kurnool District and others. … Petitioners And J.Jayaprada and another … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.9211 of 2008 ORDER: Today, this matter has been listed under the caption of Interlocutory to take up W.P.M.P. No.39707 of 2010, filed by the petitioner, who is the 1st respondent in the main writ petition, seeking direction to the respondents/writ petitioners to deposit Rs.6,95,817/- along with interest by permitting the petitioner/1st respondent to withdraw the same. When the matter has been taken up, in the process of argument, a point is raised with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. Therefore, at the request of learned counsel on either side, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final adjudication. This writ petition is filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders dated 17.12.2007 passed in E.P. No.25 of 2005 in I.D. No.47 of 1996 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur and to quash the same as illegal and unreasonable. Brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent is the workwoman of the respondents, who joined as NMR Work Inspector Grade IV in Srisailam Project on 01.12.1982. Vide Proceedings dated 04.02.1989 her services were terminated. Questioning the same, she raised industrial dispute in I.D. No.47 of 1996 under Section 2(A)2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking her reinstatement into service with continuity of service with full back wages with all attendant benefits and regularize her services. Vide award dated 28.02.2000, the learned Tribunal allowed the said I.D. Assailing the award dated 28.02.2000, the petitioners, earlier, filed W.P. No.12387 of 2001 before this Court and this Court by order dated 15.03.2005 dismissed the same holding that there are no merits. Thereafter, as there is no appeal or revision and as the award passed by the learned Tribunal had attained the finality, the workwomen filed E.P. No.25 of 2005 in I.D. No.47 of 1996 under Section 11(b) of the Act seeking direction to the petitioners herein to implement the award passed in I.D. No.47 of 1996 on 28.02.2000. The learned Tribunal passed order in E.P. No.25 of 2005 on 17.12.2007 directing the petitioners herein to pay a total sum of Rs.2,47,363/- being the arrears of wages for the period from July, 2000 to April, 2005, within two months, from the date of the order, failing which, the workwoman shall be at liberty to seek for attachment of movables belonging to the petitioners herein which may be shown by separate Memo to realize the said amount. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/workwoman contended that without following due process of law, the workwoman was terminated from service illegally. Therefore, she filed I.D. No.47 of 1996 before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal allowed the said I.D. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein, earlier, filed W.P. No.12387 of 2001 and the same was also dismissed holding that there are no merits. As the award dated 28.02.2000 passed in I.D. No.47 of 1996 by the learned Tribunal had attained the finality, it is the bounden duty on the part of the petitioners herein to comply with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. As the petitioners herein did not comply with the award passed by the learned Tribunal, the workwoman was constrained to file E.P. No.25 of 2005 in I.D. No.47 of 1996, wherein, the learned Tribunal categorically directed the petitioners herein to pay a total sum of Rs.2,47,363/- towards arrears of wages for the period mentioned therein. Instead of complying with the order dated 17.12.2007, passed in E.P. No.25 of 2005 in I.D. No.47 of 1996, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. However, it is also submitted by him that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the order dated 17.12.2007 passed in E.P. No.25 of 2005 is only a consequential order of the award dated 28.02.2000 passed in I.D. No.47 of 1996, which had attained the finality. In support of his contention he placed reliance in the case of ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE v. SUNDER LAL JAIN AND ANOTHER[1] and submitted that when the award had attained the finality, proceedings for execution of the award could not be stayed in an independent writ petition when the petitioners had not chosen to assail the award by filing an appeal or by revision. It is also submitted that the petitioners knowing fully well that the writ petition is not maintainable, filed the present writ petition to deprive the legitimate right of enjoying the fruits of the award dated 28.02.2000 passed in I.D. No.47 of 1996 and prolonged the matter by obtaining the interim conditional stay. As the learned Tribunal after elaborate consideration of the matter, passed the award dated 28.02.2000 and order dated 17.12.2007, this writ petition may be dismissed as not maintainable with exemplary costs. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that since there is no alternative and effective remedy under the provisions of the Act, this writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. Prima facie, the only point that arises for consideration is whether this writ petition is maintainable or not? Admittedly, the workwoman was joined as NMR Work Inspector Grade IV in Srisailam Project on 01.12.1982. As she was terminated from service, she filed I.D. No.47 of 1996 and the same was allowed. Assailing which, the petitioners herein filed W.P. No.12387 of 2001 and the same was dismissed. As there was no appeal or revision, the award dated 28.02.2000 passed in I.D. No.47 of 1996 had attained finality and therefore, the workwoman filed E.P. No.25 of 2005 in I.D. No.47 of 1996 seeking to implement the award dated 28.02.200 passed in I.D. No.47 of 1996. In the said E.P., the learned Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to pay a sum of Rs.2,47,363/- towards arrears of wages for the period from July, 2000 to April, 2005. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/ workwoman robustly contended that when the award had attained the finality, the petitioners have bounden duty to implement the award and therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention he placed reliance in the case of ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE (one supra), relevant paras 13 and 14 of the said case reads as under: “The High Court, therefore, erred in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the appellant Bank to declare the respondents’ account as NPA from 31-3-2000 and to apply the RBI guidelines to their case and communicate the out standings which shall be recoverable by quarterly instalments over a period of two years. The later part of the order passed by the High Court wherein a direction has been issued to stay the recovery proceedings and the recovery certificate issued against the respondents has been cancelled is also wholly illegal as the decree passed by DRT had attained finality and proceedings for execution of decree could not be stayed in an independent writ petition when the respondents had not chosen to assail the decree by filing an appeal, which is a statutory remedy provided under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial institutions Act, 1993. In view of the discussions made above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 17-8-2005 passed by the High Court is set aside. The appellant will be entitled to its costs.” From the above, it is clear that when the order had attained the finality, proceedings for execution of that order could not be stayed in an independent writ petition when the party had not chosen to assail the order by filing an appeal. In the instant case, the award passed by the learned Tribunal had attained the finality, as there is no appeal as against the award passed by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal by exercising the powers vested under Section 11-B of the Act, directed the petitioners to pay a total sum of Rs.2,47,363/- being the arrears of wages for the period from July, 2000 to April, 2005, within two months from the date of the order, failing which the workwoman was given liberty to seek for attachment of movables belonging to the petitioners. Therefore, I am of the view that this writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. Further, this writ petition has been filed invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of certiorari, which can be issued only when the authority, who exercises the powers without any jurisdiction or when the error appear on the face of the record. In the instant case, the writ petitioner failed to point out any of those aspects for issuance of writ of certiorari. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to cost. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 19.04.2011 LSK [1] (2008)2 Supreme Court Cases 280