COMMON ORDER:

C.R.P.No.1061 of 2020 questions the correctness of docket order dated 12.02.2020 of learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam in E.P.No.457 of 2017 in I.D.No.20 of 2005. C.R.P.No.216 of 2020 questions the correctness of order dated 25.11.2019 of learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam in E.A.No.688 of 2019 in E.P.No.1 of 2018 in I.D.No.20 of 2005. C.R.P.No.218 of 2020 questions the correctness of order dated 25.11.2019 of learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam in E.A.No.812 of 2019 in E.P.No.457 of 2017 in I.D.No.20 of 2005. C.R.P.No.1012 of 2020 questions the correctness of order dated 12.02.2020 of learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam in E.P.No.1 of

2018 in I.D.No.20 of 2005.

2. Judgment debtors are the revision petitioners. Decree holder is the respondent. Common question of fact and law are involved in all the four revisions and all the four revisions are argued by the learned counsel on both sides. In these circumstances, they need be disposed of by this common order.

3. The facts that are not in dispute are relevant to be noticed here:

On an application moved by the respondent herein in I.D.No.20 of 2005 the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (Central) at Hyderabad (for short, >the Industrial Tribunal?) passed an award dated 29.04.2014 directing the Food Corporation of India to reinstate 72 contract workers into service with 50% back wages and additionally it ordered to extend the benefit of Direct Payment system to the contract workers. Aggrieved of it, the judgment debtors preferred W.P.No.33452 of 2014 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the award and its legality was questioned. The said writ petition is pending before this Court. The decree holder under the award also filed W.P.No.23610 of 2015 seeking implementation of the award and the same is pending before this Court. While those writ petitions are pending, the decree holder chose to move execution petitions for execution of the award. They filed E.P.No.457 of 2017 in I.D.No.20 of 2005 and filed E.P.No.1 of 2018 in I.D.No.20 of 2005. Thus, two execution petitions came to be filed for execution of the award. On receipt of the notices, judgment debtors put in their appearance and filed counters in the execution petitions. In the counters judgment debtors questioned the maintainability of execution petitions on various grounds. It is stated that the Court which passed the award alone is competent to execute but not the Court at Visakhapatnam and therefore, the executing Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the execution petitions. It is categorically averred therein requesting the executing Court to decide the issue of jurisdiction at the first instance as a preliminary issue and only then take decision in the execution petitions. The further contention in the counter include that in the execution petition in the column concerning making an appeal to superior Court the information furnished by decree holder is against the fact as it failed to mention the writ petitions that were filed and pending. It is also stated that the execution petitions were filed not only by the decree holders but also by some of the legal representatives of decree holders without showing any legal heir certificates. It is also mentioned that the execution petitioners having been gainfully employed cannot claim wages that were allegedly accrued from the time of award.

Before the executing Court in the pending execution petitions, decree holders filed certain execution applications, namely, E.A.No.812 of 2019 in E.P.No.457 of 2017 and E.A.No.688 of 2019 in E.P.No.1 of 2018. Those applications were filed under Order XXI Rule 41 C.P.C., wherein decree holders sought for a direction from the executing Court to direct the judgment debtors to disclose the assets of judgment debtors in Form-16A Appendix-E. The purpose of filing such applications is that the execution petitions were filed under Order XXII Rules 43 and 64 to 66 C.P.C