IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14595 of 2008 Between: The Management of Lakshminarayana Modern Rice Mill Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam distrct, rep. by Vysyaraju Rajendra Raju ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Labour Court Near Bridge, Srikakulam. 2 N. Srinivasa Rao S/o. Late Simhaiah, Krishnapuram, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District. .....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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the entertaining section 2(a)(2) petition under I.Dact When once the respondent No.2 and the applicant in labour court have received full amount as per bilateral agreement between him and the management to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- and full satisfactory settlement as null and void violation of constitution fundamental rights and principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside all the proceedings in I.D.6/ 2008 by the respondent No.1 herein and the labour court and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.PRASAD RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14595 of 2008 ORDER: The 2nd respondent approached the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), complaining that he was illegally retrenched by the petitioner. The Labour Court took up the same as I.D.No.6 of 2008 and issued notice to the petitioner. This writ petition is filed, challenging the very action of the Labour Court in entertaining the I.D., by stating that the claim of the 2nd respondent was already settled by paying lumpsum amount and that he has no subsisting right. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Labour. The claim made by the 2nd respondent under Section 2-A (2) of the Act was taken up by the Labour Court and it was registered as an I.D. Mere registration of I.D., by itself, does not entail in determination of any rights. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Labour Court does not have jurisdiction. The contentions of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent has been paid the benefits and that no illegality has taken place at their end, can certainly be put forward before the Labour Court itself. The other grievance as to the permission to avail the services of a legal practitioner can also be agitated before the Labour Court. There is no reason to believe that the Labour Court would not take these aspects into account. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise all objections, as to the maintainability of the I.D., as well as to seek permission to avail the services of a legal practitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 08.07.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14595 of 2008 Date: 08.07.2008 JSU