IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.8937 of 2008 Between: M/s. Futnani Steels Private Limited Shamirpet Village, Shamirpet Mandal, pin 500 014, R.R. District, rep by its Managing Director Sri. Murlimal Futnani, S/o Vishanji Futnani, aged about 58 years. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal Secretary, Labour, Employment Training & Factories (Lab-1) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Labour, Government of A.P., Anjaiah Bhavan, RTC X roads, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad-20 3 The Conciliation Officer cum Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District-I, Anjaiah Bhavan, RTC X roads, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad-20 4 Futnani Steel (P) Ltd., Employees Union Max Bhavan, 658, Vidyanagar, 7th Lane, Hyderabad-44, rep by its General Secretary. ....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, order or Direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and set a side the G.O.Rt.No.472 dated 1/3/2008 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, perverse in the interest lf justice and equity and pass such other order or orders or any other appropriate Writ or direction as the Hon'ble Court deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case otherwise the petitioner herein will be put to great hardship and loss. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.V.HARI HARAN Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.8937 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: Heard both sides. This Writ Petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus to declare G.O.Rt.No.472, Labour, Employment, Training & Factories (Lab.I) Department, dated 1-3-2008 issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary and illegal. Under the impugned Order, Government has referred an industrial dispute under Section 10(1) of the of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for short ‘the Act’) to the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad for adjudication, by framing the following issues: 1. Whether the action of the management of M/s. Futnani Steels Private Limited, Shameerpet Mandal, Rangareddy District is justiﬁed in dismissing Sri P. Ashok, Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, Sri J. Mallesh and Sri Tapan, who were internal oﬃce bearers of the Futnan Steels (P) Limited Employees Union, R.No.A-2131 while charter of demands is pending ? 2. Whether the action of the management of M/s. Futnani Steels Private Limited, Shameerpet Mandal, Rangareddy District is justiﬁed in refusing to negotiate with the Union on the ground that the oﬃce bearers are no more employees of the factory since they were dismissed, during the pendency of charter of demands ? 3. Whether the demands of Futnani Steels Private Limited Union, R.No.A-2131 is justiﬁed in demanding the revision of wage and beneﬁts as per their representation dated 18/3/2007 and 16/10/2007 (except demand No.9) (Annexure-I & II are enclosed). 4. If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled? There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suﬃce to notice that it is the grievance of the petitioner- management that issues 1 and 2 were not part of the conciliation of the Charter of Demands before the conciliation authority and, therefore, they could not have been referred for adjudication before the Labour Court. Whereas, Sri K.Balagopal, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, states that the oﬃce bearers were in service as on the date when they raised the dispute; however, they were dismissed from service after they raised the charter of demands. Under these circumstances, the conciliation authority has taken care of the dismissal of the oﬃce bearers also into consideration and as such, referred the issue of dismissal of oﬃce bearers also, along with others two issues, under Section 10(1) of the Act, for adjudication. Even otherwise, the oﬃce bearers, as workmen, are also entitled to raise a dispute either under Section 2-A(2) of the Act or the Government could have referred the matter under Section 10(1) of the Act for adjudication as to their dismissal from service. Therefore, what the management is trying to project is only an empty formality and there is no substance in the stand taken by the petitioner-management. Be that as it may, now the question, whether such issues could have been referred to the Labour Court or not by the Government could also be considered by the Labour Court, on its own merits, if any such objection is raised by the petitioner-management, along with all other issues that arise for consideration in the I.D. If such Writ Petitions are entertained at this stage, it amounts to scuttling the process of summary proceedings and it is not in the interest of either the workmen or the management. Therefore, I am of the opinion that no ground is made out calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the Labour Court shall take all the objections that may be taken by the Management into consideration and decide the issues, along with all other issues that require to be answered in the I.D. No order as to costs. 24-9-2008 prk