IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8051 of 2008 Between: Sree Venkateswara Winery & Distillery Pvt. Ltd. Bandlaguda Road, Nagole, Rangareddy District Rep. by is Vice President Sri P.Pandu Ranga Rao, S/o. Suryanarayana aged about 58 years, R/o. Banddalaguda, Nagole, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary Labour, Empt, Trg & Factories Department A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Chairman Industrial Tribunal-II Chandra Vihar Buildings Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The General Secretary Sree Venkateswara Wineries & Distilleries Karmika Sangham R/o. H.No. 4-3-62, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad-500195. 4 The Conciliation officer Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 & the Deputy Commissioner of Labour Rangareddy District Zone T. Anjaiah Karmika Sankashema Bhavan, RTC X Road, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ or order or direction and more particularly, one in ther nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that: i) the impugned G.O.Rt. No. 1853 LET & F (Lab-I) Department dated 29-8-2006 issued by the 1st respondent-Government making reference to the 2nd respondent - Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad for adjudication of the Charter of Demands dated 2-12-2004 is unreasonable, void in law and illegal, besides in violation of the principles of natural justice and the same may be quashed. And: ii) Consequently, to stay/issue prohibition orders in respect of the impugned I.D No. 16 of 2006 on the file of the 2nd respondent-Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, as being arbitrary, illegal. iii) the impugned interim order dated 24-3-2008 in IA No. 11 of 2008 in ID No. 16 of 2006 passed by the 2nd respondent-Industrial Tribunal-II, is unreasonable, void in law and illegal, and as such, the same may be quashed/ set aside iv) the 3rd respondent-union of Permanent workmen of the petitioner establishment has no locus standi to espouse any issue, including confirmation or regularization of services of contract labourt etc., in Demand No. 11 under law, and that such inclusion of the said Demand in the impugned G.O.Rt. No. 1853 LET & F (Lab-I) Department dated 29- 8-2006 is void in law and illegal the that extent may be quashed. Or pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MOHAMMAD YOUSUFUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.8051 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is an Industry. The Trade Union of workers employed in the petitioner, has submitted charter of demands on 02-02-2004, complaining that the petitioner did not accede to their demands. They approached the Conciliation Officer, the 4th respondent herein. The latter, in turn, reported to the State Government, the 1st respondent herein, about failure of negotiations. Through its order in G.O.Rt.No.1853, Labour Employment Training and Factories (Lab.I) Department, dated 29-08-2006, the 1st respondent referred the dispute to the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent. The same was taken as I.D.No.16 of 2006. The petitioner challenges the very validity of reference, by raising certain grounds. It also assails an order dated 24- 03-2008 passed by the Tribunal in I.A.No.11 of 2008 in I.D.No.16 of 2006. Sri Mohd.Yousufuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the reference made by the 1st respondent to the Tribunal is contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’). It is alleged that all the employees were engaged through Labour Contractors, and therefore, the reference is untenable in law. He further contends that the Tribunal directed the petitioner to produce the record, which is not in its possession, and the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The charter of demands were initially presented to the petitioner, and thereafter, to the 4th respondent. As provided under the Act, the 4th respondent had undertaken conciliation, and on finding that it was not successful, reported the matter to the 1st respondent. Thereupon, the dispute was referred to the Tribunal. The petitioner is not able to point out any serious infirmity, or jurisdictional error in the order of reference. At any rate, the petitioner did not choose to challenge the reference, at the initial stage. More than 1 ½ years have elapsed from the date of reference, as well as the acceptance of the reference by the Tribunal; and the petitioner participated in the proceedings, and particularly I.A.No.11 of 2008, without any demur. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the G.O.Rt.No.1853, dated 29-08-2006. Another grievance of the petitioner is about the order passed by the Tribunal in I.A.No.11 of 2008, directing it to place certain records. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the direction is vague, and the petitioner is not in possession of the records, which are required to be maintained by the Labour Contractor. If that be so, it can produce such of the records, which are in its possession, and explain, as to the other records, which are not in its possession. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, but however, directing that the petitioner shall be under obligation to place such records, as are in its possession, in compliance with the directions issued by the Industrial Tribunal in I.A.No.11 of 2008. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.15-04-2008. KO To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{GMS}