Ms. G. ROHINI, J.

WA Nos. 1069, 1070 and 1071 of 2012 are filed by the respondents in WP Nos. 22369, 22370 and 22832 of 2012 (A.P. State Road Transport Corporation) aggrieved by the common order dated 6.8.2012 passed by a learned Single Judge granting interim suspension of the orders impugned in the said writ petitions.

2. Since the issue involved in the writ appeals and the writ petitions is one and the same and the pleadings in all the writ petitions are complete, we thought it• appropriate to hear and dispose of the writ petitions also along with the writ appeals. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties, all the writ appeals and writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

Brief facts:

3. The writ petitioners who are the employees of the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'Corporation') were placed under suspension pending enquiry in public interest by separate orders dated 16.7.2012. On 16.7.2012 itself charge-sheets were served on the writ petitioners calling upon them to submit their explanation within seven days. The charges included that the writ petitioners, who are the office-bearers of the Employees Union of Prakasam Region had abused and physically assaulted a Supervisor on duty on 11.7.2012 which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(viii)(ix) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.

4. The orders of suspension dated 16.7.2012 have been assailed in WP Nos. 22369, 22370 and 22382 of 2012 contending that the writ petitioners being the office-bearers of the APSRTC Employees Union are the protected workmen and therefore they cannot be placed under suspension without seeking the written permission of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour before whom the conciliation proceedings pursuant to the strike notice, dated 11.6.2012 issued by the Union are pending.

5. The Corporation filed counter affidavits contending inter alia that the writ petitioners are not protected workmen and therefore they are not entitled to the protection under Section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'ID Act'). It was also contended that suspension pending enquiry was not a punishment nor it had affected the conditions of service to the prejudice of the petitioners and therefore Section 33 was not attracted at all.

6. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge by common order dated 6.8.2012 made in WPMP Nos. 28677, 28678 and 28690 of 2012 granted interim suspension of the impugned orders of suspension, dated 16.7.2012 holding that the writ petitioners are entitled to the protection under Section 33(3) of the I.D. Act and therefore the Corporation should obtain express permission in writing from the Conciliation Authority before proceeding against the petitioners.

7. Aggrieved by the interim suspension so granted by the learned Single Judge pending WP Nos. 22369, 22370 and 22382 of 2012, the Corporation preferred WA Nos. l069, 1070 and 1071 of 2012 respectively.

8. As stated above, having regard to the fact that adjudication of the controversy involved in the writ appeals is nothing but deciding the main writ petitions, with the consent of the learned Counsel we have called for the writ petitions also and heard at length Sri A.G. Satyanarayana Rao, the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners and Sri C.R. Sridharan, the learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation.

9. Admittedly the writ petitioners are the office-bearers of the APSRTC Employees Union of Prakasam Region, Ongole. It is also a fact that conciliation proceedings are pending before the Conciliation Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ongole, as provided under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 9 of the A.P. Industrial Disputes Rules. The said proceedings commenced on 13.7.2012 and according to the writ petitioners, victimisation of the members of the Employees Union by the Depot Manager of Giddalur is one of the disputes being investigated by t