IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1129 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 30/07/2008 in WP NO : 15796 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 TTD Forest worker Union, Rep. by its General Secretary, Tirupati - 517 501, Chittoor District. 2 The Chief Conservator Officer, T.T.Devasthanams, Tirupati. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, rep. by its Executive Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District 2 The Chief Conservator Officer, T.T.Devasthanams, Tirupathi 3 The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants :MR.RAMBABU SAMBANGI Counsel for the Respondents : MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO(SC FOR TTD) The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1129 of 2008 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy) This writ appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is ﬁled by respondent No.2 in writ petition No.15796 of 2006, aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge, dated 30th July 2008. 2. The petitioner is a Workers’ Union for the daily wage workers in the forests maintained by Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam. They have ﬁled an application in I.D.No.188 of 2000 before the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Guntur under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking directions against the respondents herein, to regularize the services of Forest Mazdoors of the Devasthanam, the names of whom were furnished in Annexure-I enclosed to the I.D. The Industrial Tribunal, by its award dated 23rd February 2006, has declared that such workers are not entitled for regularization of their services, but are entitled for wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work on par with the same category of regular employees working in the organization. 3. As against the same, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, through its executive oﬃcer, has ﬁled writ petition No.15796 of 2006, questioning the validity of the award. It was the case of the respondent- Devasthanam before the learned Single Judge that the award passed by the Tribunal was without jurisdiction, as the matter raised before it was not ‘industrial dispute’ within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the Act, in the absence of which, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate the matter. The learned single Judge, accepting the plea raised on behalf of the respondents with regard to maintainability, has allowed the writ petition on the ground that the relief sought for cannot be maintained in the absence of reference under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act. 4. In this writ appeal, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the said dispute was raised before the Tribunal in view of the observations made by this Court in the earlier writ petition being W.P.No.20761 of 1997. On the earlier occasion, when the members of the appellant-Union had approached this Court seeking directions for their regularization, this Court has merely observed that it is open for the Union to approach the competent Industrial Tribunal. That does not mean that the Tribunal should resolve an industrial dispute, without there being any reference by the competent authority, as contemplated under Section 10 of the Act. 5. In that view of the matter, we do not ﬁnd any merit in this writ appeal so as to interfere with the orders passed by the learned single Judge. By virtue of the provisions under Section 2-A of the Act, as inserted by State amendment, only in cases relating to either discharge or removal from service, applications can be ﬁled by the workmen in the prescribed manner, before the Labour Court, for adjudication of such dispute, and all other disputes have to be referred by the Government to the Tribunal, in the absence of which, there is no authority for the Tribunal to decide such disputes. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. However, the appellant-Association is at liberty to approach the competent authority, seeking reference of the matter to the Tribunal for adjudication. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 12th September 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr