IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 751 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 07/08/2007 in WP NO : 12618 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The District Educatinal Officer, East Godavari District, Kakinada ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Masa Ramdas S/o Pamphadhi R/o Hamsavaram Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District 2 Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, rep by Presiding Officer, .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR LABOUR The Division Bench of this Court made the following : Judgment follows 2nd page THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI A N D THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 751 of 2009. J U D G M E N T : ( Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari) The writ appeal is filed against order dated 27-7-2007 passed in WPMP.No. 20462 of 2007 in WVMP.No. 1632 of 2006 in WP.No. 12618 of 2004 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge while dismissing the petition observed that it is always open for the writ petitioner to take any reasonable stand before the executing court, if any execution petition is filed by the respondents therein. 2. The genesis of the facts can be briefly narrated as follows: The main writ petition is filed questioning the exparte award dated 20-8-2001 passed in ID.No.177 of 2000 by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, allowing the above Industrial Dispute, directing the management to reinstate the workman with backwages and continuity of service on the ground that he was appointed as watchman in the organization of the Mandal Educational Officer, Tuni, East Godavari district and the workman joined in service on 01-10-1987 on a monthly salary of Rs.250/- and worked till 28-2-1993 and requested the management to enhance the pay and also to appoint him as Attender on regular basis, his services were terminated. Thereafter he represented the matter to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada, who advised to approach the Tribunal. It appears that he was not issued any retrenchment notice nor paid any compensation. To that effect, he filed Ex.W-1 service certificate issued by the Mandal Educational Officer. According to the certificate, he worked as night watchman at Jawhar Bala Bhavan, Tuni from 10/87 to 28-2-1993 as per office records. As per the evidence let- in by the workman, the Tribunal held that the workman served as a night watchman in the respondent-organization and his services were abruptly stopped without issuing a notice and paying any compensation violating section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Tribunal held that the workman is liable to be reinstated into service. Thereafter, the appellant-writ petitioner review petition before the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that the individual approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court after lapse of seven years but the Industrial Tribunal has not considered the same and dismissed the review petition. The workman has filed EP.No. 29 of 2002 in I.D.No.177 of 2000 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. While the said EP is pending, the District Educational Officer filed WP.No. 12618 of 2004 before this court against the order dated 01-7-2004 passed in I.D.No.177 of 2001 by the Industrial Tribgunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, seeking to suspend the expate order passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. This court by order dated 21-7-2004 passed in WPMP.No. 16105 of 2004 in WP.No.12618 of 2004 granted interim stay. Thereafter, the workman filed WVMP.No. 1632 of 2006 seeking to vacate the stay order passed in WPMP.No.16105 of 2004 in WP.No.12618 of 2004 and the writ petitioner filed WPMP.No.20462 of 2007 in WVMP.No.1632 of 2006 in WP.No.12618 of 2004 seeking to modify the order. When the interim order passed on 26-2-2007 was not complied, the learned single Judge vacated the interim and the relief sought by the writ petitioner seeking to modify the order was dismissed observing that the writ petitioner can take reasonable stand before the executing court, if the workman files any EP before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner filed the present writ appeal. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for School Education as well as the learned counsel for the first respondent-workman and the learned Government Pleader for Labour. 4. Having heard the learned Government Pleader for School Education as well as the learned counsel for the first respondent- workman, as the writ appeal is filed only against the order dated 07-8- 2007 passed in WPMP.No.20462 of 2007 in WVMP.No.1632 of 2006 in WP.MP.No.16105 of 2004 in WP.No.12618 of 2004 by the learned single Judge and the main writ petition itself is pending before the learned single Judge, we deem it appropriate that final adjudication of main writ petition itself would suffice the cause of the appellant-writ petitioner. We further deem it appropriate to direct the Registry to list WP.No.12618 of 2004 positively on 06-7-2009 on the top of the list under the caption for final hearing. 5. With the above direction, the writ appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 16-6-2009. I s L