IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8669 of 2009 Between: Steel Authority of India Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and a Government of India Undertaking, having its Regional Office & Branch Transport & Shipping Office at Harbour Approach Road, Visakhapatnam - 530 035, represented by its Branch Manager Mr.Anil Bhatnagar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500 001. 2 Mr.V.Ramalingeswara Rao S/o.V.Chidananda Rao R/o.D.No.2-144, Purushottapuram Colony, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam - 530 026. 3 S.B. Movers & Lifters PVt. Ltd., represented by its Manager Flat - 111 C, Door No. 47-11-8, Kuppili Apartments, 1st Lane Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam - 530 016. 4 S.B. Movers & Lifters PVt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, DSIDC Shed No.16, Okhla Industrial Estate - Phase - I New Delhi 110 020. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.R.SRIDHARAN The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Prohibition to prohibit respondent No.1 from proceeding with L.C.I.D.No.65 of 2007 as far as the petitioner is concerned. At the hearing, Sri C.R.Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even according to respondent No.2 -workman, he was employed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and, therefore, the petitioner is neither necessary nor proper party to the L.C.I.D. He further submitted that according to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited v. State of West Bengal [1] , the Labour Courts/Tribunals constituted by the appropriate State Government alone have jurisdiction to entertain a dispute raised against the petitioner. In my considered view, the writ petition is premature, because without raising those objections before respondent No.1, the petitioner straight away approached this Court by way of this writ petition. Respondent No.1 being headed by a Judicial Officer can appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner. I have no reason to believe that the petitioner’s objections will not receive proper consideration by the Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the Tribunal raising the above-mentioned objections. If such an application is filed, respondent No.1 is directed to decide the same before proceeding with the main dispute in L.C.I.D.No.65 of 2007. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.11360 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th APRIL, 2009. kvni [1] MANU/SC/4248/2008