IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA Writ Appeal No.1066 of 2007 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 14-06-2007 in W.P.No.20241 of 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Management of Praga Tools Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad. ... APPELLANT AND 1. The Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Chandravihar Building, 1st Floor, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. 2. Praga Casual Workers Union, Balnagar, Kavadiguda Division (PCWU), Regd.No.A/2771/95, H.No.4-18-73, Girinagar, Balanagar, Hyderabad - 37, rep by its General Secretary, Mohd. Naimulla Khan, s/o. Khadeerullah Khan ...RESPONDENTS HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA Writ Appeal No.1066 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice) Present respondent No.2 had filed Writ Petition No.20241 of 2005 challenging the validity of the award dated 30-12-2003 made in I.D.No.10 of 2000 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal –I, Hyderabad. 2. After hearing the advocates concerned and looking to the facts of the case, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by making the following observations-- “At the outset, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No error apparent on the face of record or any illegality or infirmity committed by the Tribunal is brought to the notice of this Court, except saying that since the members of the petitioner-union are working for the last more than 15 years, they are entitled for regularization of their services automatically. The Tribunal has considered the financial position of the company and came to the conclusion that it may not be possible for the respondent-company to regularize the services of the petitioner-union en bloc. Therefore, no interference can be made by this Court with the impugned Award. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the members of the petitioner-union are working for the last more than 15 years, either intermittently or with artificial breaks and they are being engaged by the company for the purpose of attending to its works. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that a model employer cannot keep its employees, whether casual or daily wage, to lurch in uncertainty as to their service conditions. Therefore, the respondent-Management is directed to consider framing of a Scheme for the purpose of absorbing the members of the petitioner-union on regular basis, after obtaining suitable directions from the appropriate authority and as per the needs of the company.” 3. Though the writ petition has been dismissed, it has been challenged by the present appellant-employer. 4. Ms. G. Sudha, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, has submitted that while dismissing the writ petition the learned Single Judge has given certain directions, which are objectionable to the appellant-employer. She has drawn our attention to the last sentence of the order impugned, which is as under— “Therefore, the respondent-Management is directed to consider framing of a Scheme for the purpose of absorbing the members of the petitioner-union on regular basis, after obtaining suitable directions from the appropriate authority and as per the needs of the company.” 5. It has been submitted by the learned advocate that by virtue of the above direction, the appellant-employer will be constrained to frame a Scheme for giving regular appointment to workers of respondent No.2 union. 6. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has not given any specific direction to employ the workmen while dismissing the writ petition. The only direction is to consider the question of framing a Scheme for the purpose of absorbing the members of respondent No.2 union on regular basis after obtaining suitable directions from the appropriate authority as per the needs of the company. The said observation made by the learned Single Judge does not give any direction, but it has been left open to the appellant-employer to consider whether it would be possible to frame a Scheme for absorbing the members of respondent No.2 union on regular basis. It is for the appellant-employer to decide whether such a Scheme is feasible. 7. In view of the fact that no direction to employ the workmen has been given by the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. __________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ January 23, 2008 ________________________​__ GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA, J GLV/BCJ