IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND 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 : 655 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 28/04/2009 in WP NO : 27007 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M/s. Sree Venkateswara Winery & Distillery Private Ltd. Reptd. by its Vice President, P. Pandu Ranga Rao, Factory at Bandlaguda Road, Nagole, Ranga Reddy District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Chairman/Presiding Officer Addl. Industrial Tribunal cum Addl. Labour Court Chandra Vihar Buildings, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 M. Ramesh Reddy S/o. Mohan Reddy H.No. 4-2-9/B, Snehapuri Colony, Hyderabad - 500 085. 3 The Asst. Commissioner of Labour - III Hyderabad T. Anjaiah Karmika Sankshema Bhavan, RTC. 'X' Roads, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.MOHAMMAD YOUSUFUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 655 of 2009 J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The writ appeal is filed against order dated 28-4-2009 passed in WPMP.No.35378 of 2008 in WP.No. 27007 of 2008 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge suspended the award dated 10-7-2008 passed in ID.No.66 of 2005 on the file of Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, subject to the condition of the appellant-writ petitioner depositing 1/3rd of the backwages awarded in the impugned award before the first respondent within a period of four weeks from today. The learned single Judge further observed that the second respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security and that the appellant-writ petitioner company is said to have been closed, the learned single Judge disinclined to order payment of section 17-B Wages. 2. The main writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to declare the impugned award dated 10-7-2008 passed in I.D.No.66 of 2005 by the first respondent as illegal, void and violative of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 besides violative of Article 14, 16 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the impugned award. 3. Sri Mohammed Yousufuddin, the learned counsel representing the appellant-company contended that the second respondent Ex- Workman was abstaining from duty from 26-7-2005 and thereafter the Excise Officials brought him to the appellant’s establishment on 27-7- 2005 to investigate about the “Rectified Spirit” found in the house of the second respondent and thus, he was involved in Excise offence and he was also sent to judicial custody. Thereafter, the second respondent was terminated from service w.e.f., 01-8-2005 by enclosing a cheque for Rs.15,969/- towards his full and final settlement. The learned counsel further submits that the appellant company was closed on 02-12-2005 by an order of AP Pollution control Board and the same has not yet reopened. While things stood thus, passing order to reinstate the second respondent and to pay him back wages more so against a closed unit, which does not arise. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Labour, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge in view of the observations made in the impugned order. After satisfying with the facts of the case, the learned single Judge suspended the award subject to the condition of the appellant-writ petitioner depositing 1/3rd of the back wages awarded in the impugned award before the first respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of order and directed the second respondent to withdraw 1/3rd deposit without furnishing any security. In view of Section 17-B wages, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned in the present writ appeal and we do concur with the order passed by the learned single Judge. 5. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. _____________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI ____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 02-6-2009. I s L