B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition assails the Constitutional validity of Section 17-A of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and the consequent notification issued by the 2nd respondent-State Government in g. O. Ms. No. 2, Labour Department, dated 20-1-1994 in exercise of the powers under Section 17-A (1) of the Act stating that the award dated 1-9-1993 passed in I. D. No. 349 of 1994 (sic. 1991) shall not be enforceable for the reasons stated therein. The challenge is to the vires of the Section, which is the prime argument; the second argument being the unsustainabili ty of the reasons stated in the consequent notification as baseless and irrelevant.

( 2 ) THE petitioner-Tclugunadu Work-charged Employees State Federation, nalgonda District Unit-is a Trade Union and is the District Union of telugunadu Trade Union Council, having been registered under the Trade unions Act. It is stated that the petitioner comprises of 1,500 members and that the petitioner-Union has been looking after the welfare of the workmen, nagarjunasagar Project, Left Bank Canal, who are the members of the petitioner-Union.

( 3 ) WHEN the workmen working in various projects of the State of Andhra pradesh were removed from service, they had approached the Supreme Court by invoking Article 32 of the Constitution of India by filing W. P. No. 657 of 1987. Among the petitioners therein, there are 77 workmen, who are the members of the petitioner s Union. The Supreme Court passed interim order dated 30-7-1987 continuing their services and acting upon the same, order dated 1-9-1987 was issued by the 5th respondent reinstating 74 workmen in miryalguda Division and they continued so up to October, 1987. For the months of September and October, 1987, they were paid wages. The workmen were being transferred very often and even the type of work was changed; as such, they approached this Court and ultimately, the matter landed in the Supreme court by way of S. L. P. No. 16189 of 1990. The same was disposed of by the supreme Court on 31-7-1991; by virtue of which, the matter was referred to the Labour Court at Hyderabad enabling the workmen to seek necessary relief and consequently, the entire record was remitted to the Labour Court, hyderabad where the dispute was numbered as I. D. No. 342 of 1991 and was renumbered as I. D. No. 349 of 1991 when it was transferred to Labour Court- ill, Hyderabad. The Labour Court, after following the procedure and conducting theenquiry by recording oral evidence and receivingdocumentary evidence, had passed the Award dated 1-9-1993 declaring that the workmen shall be deemed to be in employment with effect from 1-9-1987 and that they should be reinstated with back wages at the rate of 1/5th of the last drawn wage. As there was delay in publication of the Award from which date award takes effect, W. P. No. 18834 of 1993 was filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus against the 2nd respondent to publish the Award. The said writ petition was filed on 14-12-1993 and thegovernment Pleader had taken notice seeking time for getting instructions and in the meanwhile, the Award was published in g. O. Rt. No. 2761, Women s Development, Child Welfare and Labour department, dated 23-12-1993 and in view of the same, the above Writ Petition was closed on 21-1-1994. But, a day before the same, i. e. on 20-1-1994, g. O. Ms. No. 2,women sdevelopment, Child Wclfareand Labour Department, was issued in exercise of the powers contained under Section 17-A (1) of the act stating that the award so published in G. O. Rt. No. 2761, dated 23-12-1993 shall not be enforceable.

( 4 ) MR. E. Manohar, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, makes two-fold submission; (1) that Section 17-A of the Act is ultra vires the constitution of India as the Government, which is the executive authority, cannot annul the order of Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court; and (ii) that when an industrial dispute is undertaken fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document