IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1367 OF 2009 Dt.25.11.2009 Between: Jonnadula Madhava Rao and others … Appellants And The District Collector Guntur District, Guntur and others … Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri K. Ramakoteswara Rao Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: G.P. for Revenue THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1367 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) The appellants are aggrieved by an order dt.22.9.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.20144 of 2009. By virtue of the impugned order, the petition filed by the appellants – original petitioners has been rejected. The case of the petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that the petitioners had to recover some amount from the respondent – employer and for that purpose they had filed applications under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”). It was an admitted fact before the learned Single Judge that the applications were pending. Yet, the petitioners had prayed that the property of respondent No.3 – company be attached and the amount payable to the petitioners be paid by the respondent – employer. As the applications under Section 33-C of the Act have not been disposed of, the learned Single Judge did not think it proper to entertain the petition and therefore the petition has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. The aforestated order of rejection of the petition has been challenged in this appeal. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge, as the applications filed by the appellants – petitioners are still pending and as there was no application before the Labour Court praying for attachment of the property, the property of the respondent – employer could not have been attached and therefore the appellants - petitioners were not entitled to any relief before the learned Single Judge. For the aforestated reason, we do not find any substance in the appeal and therefore the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Appeal, W.A.M.P. No.2861 of 2009 filed by the appellants- petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25.11.2009 bnr