IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15390 of 2008 Between: ICICI Bank Ltd. Rep. by its Regional Manager Upadyaula Satyanarayana Murthy O/o 40-1-52/5, Sai Nag Complex, Benz Circle, Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada. 2 Smt.K.Lakshmi W/o.Kasi C/o. CITO Office, Sundarayya Bhavan, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to set aside the order in proceeding Rc. No.A/7450/2006 dt. 19.4.2008 issued by the 1st respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in violation of order dated 2.4.2008 passed in WA No.362/08 and be pleased to pass such other order/s. Counsel for the Petitioner: R.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner challenges the proceedings, dated 19.04.2008, issued by the first respondent. The second respondent approached the first respondent complaining that she was wrongfully removed from service by the petitioner. The first respondent undertook conciliation and initially tendered an advise to the petitioner to take the second respondent into service, vide proceedings, dated 06.12.2006. The petitioner filed W.P.No.13973 of 2007 challenging the said proceedings. The writ petition was allowed vide orders, dated 03.12.2007, setting aside the impugned proceedings mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to put forward its case. The contention of the petitioner that the first respondent does not have the jurisdiction was not accepted. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.A.No.362 of 2008. The writ appeal was dismissed on 02.04.2008, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise the objection as to the jurisdiction also before the first respondent. The first respondent passed an order, dated 19.04.2008, observing that the efforts to bring about the conciliation failed and taking the view that the second respondent has to work out her remedies under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). The contention of the petitioner is that the first respondent does not have the jurisdiction at all in the matter. Heard Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Labour. The first respondent did nothing more than undertaking an exercise of conciliation on a dispute raised by the second respondent. Neither he has the jurisdiction nor, in fact, he had decided any issue finally. On finding that the conciliation cannot be brought about, the first respondent opined that the second respondent has to work out her remedies under Section 2-A of the Act. By no stretch of imagination, this observation can be said to have crystallized the rights of the parties in any manner. If the petitioner is of the view that it is not amenable to any proceedings before the Labour Court, it has to wait till such proceedings are initiated by the second respondent and raise an objection before the Labour Court. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as pre-mature and it is left open to the petitioner to raise any objection in the proceedings that may be instituted by the second respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:17.07.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}