IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.13949 of 1996 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Zaheerabad. … Petitioner and The Labour Court-II, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.13949 of 1996 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. (Corporation), seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed in M.P. No.65 of 1992 on 07.07.1995 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The 2nd respondent herein is the workman who filed M.P. No.65 of 1992 (M.P. No.236 of 1990, old) on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. The learned Labour Court vide its order dated 29.04.1995 passed the following order, which reads as under: “The only contest in the counter is that the petitioner is not entitled to the difference of pay and allowances difference of exgratia and difference of encashment for the year 1982, 1984 and 1990. The workman is said to have been reinstated. The petitioner is certainly entitled to the said amount. For payment of the amount due 9-5-95.” Further, on 07.07.1995, the learned Labour Court passed another order, which reads as under: “Payment is not made. A sum of Rs.9,000/- is payable by the respondent to the petitioner. He is entitled to execute and realize the same with interest at 12% if the amount is not paid within a month. M.P. is allowed accordingly.” Aggrieved by the said order, the Corporation filed the present writ petition on the ground that the learned Labour Court without considering the counter, filed by the Corporation in the said M.P., denying the claim of the workman, passed the impugned order. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the proceedings of this Court, this Court on 17.07.1996, while ordering Rule nisi, passed ad interim suspension subject to the Corporation depositing 50% of the amount awarded by the learned Labour Court and on such deposit, the workman was permitted to withdraw the same, without furnishing any security. Further, this Court, on 29.08.1996, it is recorded that in accordance with the directions given by this Court, 50% of the amount awarded by the learned Labour Court had been deposited in the Court. Initially, the workman filed the said M.P. and the learned Labour Court upon perusing the petition, counter and other connected records and in the presence of both the counsel passed the order on 29.04.1995, as stated hereinabove, that the workman is certainly entitled to the amounts. Since the said amount was not paid, the workman filed an application under Section 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and upon considering the said application, the learned Labour Court passed another order dated 07.07.1995, as stated hereinabove, that in the presence of both the counsel appearing for both the parties a sum of Rs.9,000/- is payable by the Corporation to the workman and he is entitled to execute and realize the same with interest at 12%, if the amount is not paid, within a month and accordingly, the said application was allowed. Aggrieved by which, the Corporation filed the present writ petition. The only contention raised by the learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation is that the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court is contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice on the ground that the counter filed by the Corporation, before the Labour Court, was not considered. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the workman would submit that the learned Labour Court after hearing both the parties and perusing the material made available on the record, passed the impugned order. It is also submitted that just for the purpose of filing the present writ petition, the Corporation had taken the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, which is not sustainable as the learned Labour Court had categorically in its order mentioned that upon perusing the petition, counter and other connected material papers on record and also in the presence of both the counsel passed the order. Therefore, the present writ petition may be dismissed. Having regard to the fact that the learned Labour Court had already passed the order on 29.04.1995, adjudicating the claim of the workman that was not implemented by the Corporation by paying the amounts due to him and therefore, the he filed another application under Section 33 (c) (2) of the Act and the said application was also ordered in favour of the workman vide its order dated 07.07.1995. The amount involved in the impugned order is only Rs.9,000/- and half of the said amount had already been deposited and the workman was also permitted to withdraw the same, without furnishing any security. No counter and vacate petition has been filed. However, having regard to the nature of the case and the relief granted by the learned Labour Court in favour of the workman, I do not see any merit to say that the impugned order is illegal and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 24.08.2011 LSK