Tankasal Karmika Sangh, vs The Union Of India,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1855 Tel

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

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