IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL Nos. : 613 of 2009 & 629 of 2009 WRIT APPEAL NO : 613 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 16/03/2009 in WP NO : 5168 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board and Dock Workers Union, Regn. No. D-744/85 Dharmashakti Bhavan, Door No. 26-15-204, Near Hindu Reading Room, Main Road, Visakhapatnam - 530 001. Rep by its General Secretary, S. Parusuram, S/o. Late Achanna, Aged about 62 years, R/o. Visakhapatnam ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Read Transport and Highway, Department of Shipping, Transport Bhavan, Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110 001. 2 The Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Port Area, Visakhapatnam Rep by its Chairman 3 The Cargo Handling Division, Traffic Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam, Rep by its Traffic Manager 4 National Industrial Tribunal, Rep by its Presiding Officer, 20-B, Abdul Hameez Street, Kolkata - 700 069 .....RESPONDENTS and WRIT APPEAL NO : 629 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/04/2009 in WP NO : 19950 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Visakha Harbor and Port Workers Union (Regd No. 65) Harbor Approach Road, Visakhapatnam Rep by its Vice President, Borra Laxmana Rao S/o Late Venkata Reddy r/o Visakhapatnam. 2 Reddy satyanarayana S/o Suryanarayana URS, Tindel, No. 4927/100305, 3 Pandiri Appala Raju S/o Late Simhachalam, T/Sinalaman R.S. No. 11158/100662, VDLB Visakhapatnam 4 Boddu Yellaji Rao S/o Danyyaa Visakhapatnam. 5 Kolli Venkata Ramana S/o Late Demudu Tally Clerk, R.S. "C" No. 10195/100391, VDLB., Visakhapatnam 6 Surapathi Ramana S/o Late Danayya Maistry URS No. 6587/100522, VDLB., Visakhapatnam 7 Doonthireddy Surendra Reddy S/o Late Madhukar Reddy 101028/13232, VDLB., Visakhapatnam. 8 Medupureddy Srirama Murthy S/o Late Polipilli VDLB., Visakhapatnam 9 Cheepulli Sathirajulul S/o Narasimha Murthy Signalman, R.S. No. 11207/100654, VDLB., Visakhapatnam 10 G. Yella Rao S/o G. Yellayya Mazdoor, R.S. B No. 13143/100963 VDLB Visakhapatnam 11 Pukkalla Ammoruo S/o Late Venkata Reddy Tindel, R.S. No. 28947/100411, VDLB., Visakhapatnam 12 Dandaru Suryanarayana S/o B. Simhachalam Tally Clerk, R.S. "A" No. 100339/10140, VDLB Visakhapatnam ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 The Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road, Transport and Highway, Department of Shipping Transport Bhavan, Parliament Street, New Delhi- 110 001. 2 The Visakhaptnam port Trust, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, rep by Chairman, 3 The Visakhaptnam dock Labour Board Poart Area, Visakhapatnam-35 rep by Deputy Chairman. 4 National Industrial Tribunal rep by Presiding Officer, 20-b Abdul Hameer Street Kolkata-700 069. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants:MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents .: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) (in both the appeals) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL Nos. 613 & 629 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Smt. T. Meena Kumari,J) Since the issue involved in these writ appeals being the same, they are disposed of by this common order. These two writ appeals are directed against the common order dated 18.4.2009 of the learned single Judge of this Court made in W.V.M.P.No.3349 of 2008 in W.P.M.P. No. 25185 of 2006 in W.P. No. 19950 of 2006 and W.P.M.P. No. 6823 of 2009 in W.P. No. 5225 of 2009. The appellants-writ petitioners filed the aforementioned writ petitions before the learned single Judge questioning the Award dated 19.4.2006 of the National Industrial Tribunal at Kolkata, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal directed the 2nd respondent-Board to adopt need based system. Initially, this Court while admitting the writ petitions granted status-quo order. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent filed vacate petitions before the learned single Judge seeking vacation of the said interim orders. When the vacate petitions were taken up for hearing, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners before the learned single Judge that since the interim order of status-quo is in operation for the past 3½ years, the same may be continued till the disposal of the writ petitions. While opposing the said submission, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has contended that by virtue of the status-quo order, the award has come to a stand still and even if the award passed by the Tribunal is implemented, the same would not affect the interests of the appellants-writ petitioners; that even after switching over to the need based system, none of the members of the appellant’s union would be retrenched and the Board would not resort to the method of employing private persons belonging to Stevedoring Companies as the Award itself prohibits such engagement. The learned Standing Counsel also requested that it may be permitted to implement the Award. The learned single Judge while recording the undertaking of the learned Standing Counsel, declined to continue the order of status-quo. However, while modifying the interim order earlier granted, the learned single Judge permitted the 2nd respondent to implement the award subject to the following conditions: 1) None of the members of the petitioner’s Union shall be retrenched and; 2) Visakhapatnam Port Trust shall not resort to private engagement of Stevedoring Companies. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants-writ petitioners filed these appeals. Sri V. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-writ petitioners would contend that pursuant to the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, even though there is work load, the respondents are not deploying the appellants for several days and thereby depriving them of their legitimate wages and incentives. On the other hand, Sri P. Sri Raghuram, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Board has submitted that at present, there is no work load and whenever need arises, they will engage the appellants and they will not retrench any of them. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent. Even though it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the 2nd respondent is not engaging the appellants in spite of there being heavy work load, the learned counsel has not placed any material before us to show that there is really such work load, in the absence of which, we cannot find fault with the order of the learned single Judge. Further, in view of the specific undertaking given by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent before us as well as before the learned single Judge that they will not retrench any member of the appellants’ union and that they will not resort to any private engagement of stevedoring companies, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the learned single Judge. The writ appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Let, the writ petitions be listed for hearing before the learned single Judge on 22.6.2009. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 1st May, 2009 ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J pnb