IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.17978 of 2005 BETWEEN: The General Manager, Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., RG-I Area, Godavarikhani and another. …Petitioners AND Bandari Shankaraiah S/o.Rajam, C/o.A.Sarojana, Advocate, Veg-Market, Kutbiguda, Hyderabad And another. …Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.17978 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition was filed by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, aggrieved by the award dated 03.01.2005, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Hyderabad in L.C.I.D.No.42 of 2004, whereby, it was directed to employ the first respondent herein, as ‘badli filler’ on minimum pay scale. The labour Court clarified that his past service would not be taken into account for any purpose, and that his services should be considered for confirmation, only if he puts in minimum musters for three consecutive years. At the time of admission of this writ petition, this Court directed suspension of the award under challenge subject to the petitioner Corporation complying with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. While so, the petitioner Corporation filed W.P.M.P.No.29057 of 2009 to take up the writ petition for hearing on an ‘out of turn’ basis, relying upon the consent award dated 17.10.2006 passed under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, by the Lok Adalat, Hyderabad in L.C.I.D.No.18 of 2004. It is stated that this Court disposed of an identical matter in W.P.No.23083 of 2006 by order dated 09.04.2004, whereby the dispute was directed to be settled in accordance with the terms and proposals put forth by the management and accepted by the workman in the consent award passed in L.C.I.D.No.18 of 2004. When W.P.M.P.No.29057 of 2009 was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/workman stated that he has no objection to a similar order being passed in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the award under challenge in L.C.I.D.No.42 of 2004, and directing the settlement of the dispute between the parties in accordance with the proposals recorded in the consent award dated 17.10.2006 in L.C.I.D.No.18 of 2004 on the file of the Lok Adalat, Hyderabad. In the light of the final order passed in the writ petition, no further orders are required to be passed in W.P.M.P.No.29057 of 2009, which is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR December 09, 2009 BVV