IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1337 OF 2009 Dt.18.11.2009 Between: A.P. Paper Mills United Employees Union Rep. by General Secretary, C/o. A.P. Paper Mills Limited, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District … Appellant And The A.P. Paper Mills Limited Rajahmundry Rep. by Company Secretary Mr.C. Prabhakar, S/o. C. Krishna Murthy and others … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri G. Ramachandra Rao Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri Vedula Srinivas Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3: G.P. for Labour THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1337 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) Respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.2484 of 2004 filed this Writ Appeal against order dt.28.8.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in the said Writ Petition, whereby he set aside G.O. Ms.No.2345, dt.17.9.2001. By the said G.O., respondent No.2 referred the dispute raised by the appellant to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The main ground on which respondent No.1 questioned the reference made by respondent No.2 before the learned Single Judge was that by referring the dispute as to the status of nineteen (19) employees, whose claims were referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, respondent No.2 failed to arrive at the opinion that an industrial dispute exists. This contention has been accepted by the learned Single Judge and held that the manner in which the reference has been made suggested that the Government has not formed an opinion, which is sine qua non for reference of a dispute to Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal. Having carefully considered the submissions of Sri G. Ramachandra Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Counsel for respondent No.1, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error warranting interference in exercise of our letters patent jurisdiction. However, we find from the order of the learned Single Judge that having held that respondent No.2 – Government has not formed an opinion as to the existence of a dispute, the learned Single Judge has not directed respondent No.2 to examine the claim afresh and take a decision as to whether reference should be made or not. To this extent, we are inclined to interfere in this appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to consider the claim of the appellant - Union afresh with regard to the nineteen (19) employees and pass appropriate order by deciding whether the dispute raised by the appellant – Union shall be referred to the Industrial Tribunal or not, in the light of the findings rendered by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition. Respondent No.2 shall pass appropriate order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Appeal, W.A.M.P. No.2812 of 2009, filed by the appellant – petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18.11.2009 bnr