Item No.14
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
W.A.No.495 of 2016
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)
1. The appellant/writ petitioner/trade union is aggrieved by an
interim order dated 15.06.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge on
a vacate stay application moved by the Union of India in the writ
petition, which reads as follows:-
"It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the 4th
respondent that the Hyderabad Mint is no longer an industry
governed by any Standing Orders, but it was incorporated as a Corporation way back in 2008.
Since the writ petition was filed on the misconception of violation of Clause 9 of the Standing Orders and Rule 6 of Hyderabad Mint (Industrial Workers) Promotion Rules, 1965, this Court is satisfied that the appointment orders to the selected candidates can be given, but the appointed candidates shall be notified that their appointment would be subject to the further orders in the writ petition."
2. Mr. V. Hariharan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is aggrieved by the observations made in the first sentence of the second para of the impugned order wherein, it has been observed that the writ petition was filed on a misconception of the violation of Clause 9 of the Standing Orders and Rule 6 of the Hyderabad Mint (Industrial Workers) Promotion Rules, 1965. Learned Senior Advocate states W.A.No.495 of 2016 Page 1 of 2 that this would amount to pre-empting the case of the appellant and cause irreparable damage to it, as the writ petition is still pending adjudication.
3. In our opinion, the view expressed in the impugned interim order is only prima facie in nature. The direction issued by the court to the effect that appointment orders can be issued to the selected candidates, whose appointments have been challenged by the appellant in the writ petition that is pending adjudication, are fairly limited, as the appointments themselves have been made subject to the final orders to be passed in the writ petition.
4. It is made clear that both the parties shall be entitled to address arguments on the validity of the Standing Orders as also the Hyderabad Mint (Industrial Workers) Promotion Rules, 1965, at the time when final arguments are addressed in the writ petition.
5. With these observations, the present appeal is disposed of along with the pending applications, if any.
______________________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ ______________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 28.06.2021 JSU/PLN W.A.No.495 of 2016 Page 2 of 2