IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 552 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 16/02/2009 in WP NO : 2438 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Sodi Laxman S/o. Sipai S.C. Colony (New), Near Complex Side, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Sri Bajrang Ispat Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, 271, Vallanki Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Presiding officer, The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.K.L.N.RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.K.K.WAGHRAY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 552 of 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 16.2.2009 of the learned single Judge made in W.V.M.P. No. 3989 of 2008 in W.P.M.P. No. 4008 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 2438 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the learned single Judge dismissed the vacate stay application. The facts in brief are that the 1st respondent is the writ petitioner and the appellant is the respondent. The 1st respondent herein filed the aforementioned writ petition before the learned single Judge assailing the award of the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D. No.201 of 2000, dated 9.5.2003. In that writ petition, it also filed W.P.M.P. No. 4008 of 2007 seeking to suspend the notice issued in M.P. No.3 of 2004 by the 2nd respondent seeking compliance of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned single Judge, through order dated 2.8.2007 granted interim order suspending the said notice. Seeking vacation of the said order, the appellant filed W.V.M.P. No. 3989 of 2008. The learned single judge, by the impugned order, while declining to vacate the said interim order, dismissed the vacate stay petition. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal. Admittedly, the impugned order is only an interim order and the learned single Judge did not pass any final orders in the writ petition touching upon the merits of the matter. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the writ appeal. The writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. However, the registry is directed to post the main writ petition itself for hearing before the learned single Judge on 3.7.2009 on the top of the list. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 15th June, 2009 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J pnb