THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.20144 OF 2009 Dated 22nd September, 2009 Between: Jonnadula Madhava Rao and others …Petitioners And The District Collector and others …Respondents The Court made the following O R D E R: In this writ petition, the petitioners seek directions by way of Mandamus to attach the properties of the third respondent-Company covered by Survey No.322/3 admeasuring Ac.0.77 cents at Krishnanagar, K.C.Works Post, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District for realisation of their claims pending in M.P.No.6 of 2009 on the file of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Guntur and Application No.PG 6 of 2009 pending on the file of the Controlling Authority under payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Guntur). The petitioners filed copies of the applications in M.P.No.6 of 2009 and PG 6 of 2009 along with the writ petition. In M.P.No.6 of 2009 filed under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioners claimed that when they were working in the third respondent-Company, they were paid less wages than the wages to which they were entitled to; bonus was not paid; the company was closed without paying any closure compensation and claimed salary, bonus, leave salary, one month notice pay, closure compensation etc. Application No.PG 6 of 2009 is filed by the petitioners claiming gratuity. Even according to the petitioners, their claims in the above said two applications are still pending consideration and no orders are passed. Now this writ petition is filed seeking directions for attachment of the properties of the third respondent-Company for realisation of the claims, which are pending consideration in the two applications stated above. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any amounts with regard to their claims pending in MP No.6 of 2009 and PG 6 of 2009 is a matter yet to be examined by the Industrial Tribunal and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Guntur respectively. There is no basis for the petitioners for filing this writ petition seeking attachment of the properties of the third respondent-Company, even before their claims are considered in the above said two applications. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition to attach the properties of the third respondent-Company for realisation of the claims of the petitioners. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated 22nd September, 2009 vrn