IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 910 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/04/2008 in WP NO : 9483 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Rajahmundry Asset Godavari Bhavan, Base complex Rajahmundry,E.G.Dist Rep.by its General Manager (P&A)/Head of HE/ER ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Shri B. Bala Krishna Reddy S/o. Seetharama Reddy C/o. P. Satyanarayana R/o.Door.No.12-20-30 Aryapuram Rajahmundry, E.G. District. 2 The Government of India Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Labour Shramashakti Bhavan New Delhi 3 The Presiding Officer Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal- Cum-Labour Court Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour,M-2 Block Manoranjan Comlex,M.J.Road Hyderabad - 500 001. 4 The Presiding Officer Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal- Cum-Labour Court Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour,M-2 Block Manoranjan Comlex,M.J.Road Hyderabad - 500 001. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.KAKARAVENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Heard the learned Advocates. It is an admitted fact that at an earlier point of time, W.V.M.P.No. 1522 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.No. 12407 of 2005 had been ﬁled in the very writ petition, namely, W.P.No. 9483 of 2005. The common order passed in the said proceedings had been challenged before the Division Bench and the Division Bench had conﬁrmed the said order in W.A.No. 1266 of 2006. The Division Bench directed that W.P.No. 9483 of 2005 should be notiﬁed for ﬁnal hearing on 29-1-2007. It is also true that the petition has not yet been finally decided. On the aforestated subject i.e., on the same subject W.P.M.P.No. 10692 of 2008 was ﬁled by the present respondents and a diﬀerent order was passed on 17-4-2008 in the said proceedings than the one which was passed earlier and which was conﬁrmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No. 1266 of 2006, though there was no change in the circumstances and, therefore, there was no reason for filing another W.P.M.P. In our opinion, another application on the same subject matter should not have been ﬁled without showing any justiﬁable reason. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal by quashing the impugned order dated 17-4-2008. It has been submitted by the learned Advocates that W.P.No. 9483 of 2005 has already been listed for ﬁnal hearing. If the learned Advocate for the respondents makes an application to the learned Single Judge for taking up the aforestated writ petition for ﬁnal hearing at an early date, the learned senior counsel Sri E.Manoher has assured that the present appellant shall not ask for time and shall proceed further with the final hearing. In the circumstances, the learned Advocate for the respondents shall make a request to the learned Single Judge for taking up the writ petition for ﬁnal hearing and we are sure that due priority shall be given to hearing of the writ petition. Subject to the above observation, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ____​__________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 25th August, 2008. GRR