P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH elaborate submissions were made by Sri ravindranath Reddy, representing the petitioner, hereinafter in short referred to as "employee" in C. R. P. Nos. 80 of 2004 and 6704 of 2003 and Sri Posani Venkateswarlu representing the Revision petitioner, the authorities of the A. P. State Road Transport corporation, hereinafter referred to as "corporation" in short in C. R. P. No. 5645/ 2003, the question boils down to the limited extent "whether during the pendency of the Appeal A. S. No. 1/2004 on the file of senior Civil Judge, Kavali, the interim order granted by this Court is to be continued or all these civil revision petitions are liable to be dismissed". In view of the subsequent events and in the light of the pendency of a. . S. "no. 1/2004 on the file of Senior Civil judge, Kavali, C. R. Ps. 5645/2003 and 6704/ 2003 virtually became infructuous. No doubt, LA. No. 2/2004 was moved in the aforesaid Appeal, but in view of the urgency, the employee approached this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) CRP No. 80/2004 was filed and on 8-1-2004 and this Court while admitting the civil revision petition made the following order in C. M. P. No. 311/2004:"this petition is filed to suspend the order in ref. No. 1/114 (2)72003, dated 20-5-2003, pending disposal of A. S. No. 1 of 2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kavali. Heard. I am not inclined to grant any interim order interfering with the suspension order, since the petitioner has already filed a writ petition questioning the same and the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court. But, insofar as the charge-sheet is concerned, he filed a civil suit to declare it as illegal apart from questioning the suspension order. The suit filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, against which he has filed a first appeal with an application to grant interim stay. Since the said application was not taken by the lower appellate Court, he was constrained to file this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. All further proceedings including enquiry and issuance of show-cause notice may go on, but the final order may not be passed pursuant to the charge-sheet and enquiry report. Since the said application was not taken by the lower appellate Court, he was constrained to file this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. All further proceedings including enquiry and issuance of show-cause notice may go on, but the final order may not be passed pursuant to the charge-sheet and enquiry report. "it is clear from the aforesaid order that only passing of final order had been stayed in pursuance of the charge-sheet and enquiry report. It is no doubt brought to the notice of this Court that a show- cause notice dated 17-2-2004 was served on the employee. The employee filed suit O. S. No. 423/2003 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, kavali praying for declaration that the order of suspension dated 20-5-2003 and charge-sheet issued by the Depot Manager are illegal and the learned Judge was pleased to grant an ex pane interim injunction dated 13-8-2003 suspending the order of suspension dated 20-5-2003 till 10-9-2003 and immediately the Corporation filed counter and written statement on 10-9-2003 and though the Corporation had opposed, the Court had extended the interim order. The stand taken by the Corporation is that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit at all. However, the learned judge by docket order dated 27-10-2003 directed the Depot Manager of the corporation to appear in person before the court on 6-11-2003 basing on the application filed by the employee alleging that the order of suspension was not revoked pursuant to the interim order granted by the Civil Court and thereby committed disobedience. In such circumstances, the authorities of the Corporation had preferred c. R. P. No. 5645/2003 and on 4-11-2003 while admitting the civil revision petition in c. M. P. No. 25272/2003 the following order was made :"the order dated 13-8-2003 passed in LA. No. 1263/03 in O. S. No. 423/03 by the principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali granting interim stay of suspension order dated 20-5-2003 made by the 1st petitioner herein, who is the 1st defendant in the said suit, suspending the services of the respondent, and which order was extended from time to time, is hereby suspended. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, kavali is directed to dispose of LA. No. 1263/ 03 in which counter has been filed on 10-9-2003 within four weeks from today. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, kavali is directed to dispose of LA. No. 1263/ 03 in which counter has been filed on 10-9-2003 within four weeks from today. It is further directed that the Principal Junior civil Judge, Kavali shall formulate a preliminary issue and decide it as to whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable or not in view of the defence. taken in paragraph No. 9 of the written statement within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. "in pursuance thereof, a preliminary issue relating to the maintainability of the suit had been decided by the learned Principal Junior civil Judge, Kavali in O. S. No. 423/2003 by judgment dated 11-12-2003. Aggrieved by the same, as already stated supra, the employee had preferred A. S. No. 1/2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kavali and also moved LA. No. 2/2004 praying for interim relief. ( 3 ) CRP No. 6703/2003 is filed by the employee as against an order passed in LA. No. 1263/2003 in O. S. No. 423/2003 dated 25-11-2003. However, in view of the final disposal of the suit itself on the preliminary issue of maintainability of the suit, this civil revision petition no longer survives. It is stated that the Appeal was preferred and an application also was moved on 5-1-2004 and notice was ordered on 7-1-2004 with a direction to post the matter on 9-1-2004. The employee without even waiting for any order to be passed by the appellate Court moved this Court by filing C. R. P. No. 80/94 and in C. M. P. No. 311/2004 this Court had passed an order which had been already referred supra. ( 4 ) SRI Ravindranath Reddy, Counsel representing the employee made elaborate submissions tracing the events commencing from the day when the employee was kept under suspension and enquiry was initiated till the date of issuance of show-cause notice of removal 17-2-2004. The main grievance ventilated by the Counsel is that during the pendency of the Appeal, if an order of removal is made, virtually the appeal would become infructuous since the employee may have to approach only the industrial Tribunal or Labour Court or the authorities in the hierarchy under the regulations of A. P. State Road Transport corporation. The main grievance ventilated by the Counsel is that during the pendency of the Appeal, if an order of removal is made, virtually the appeal would become infructuous since the employee may have to approach only the industrial Tribunal or Labour Court or the authorities in the hierarchy under the regulations of A. P. State Road Transport corporation. Hence, the learned Counsel would contend that in the peculiar facts and circumstances the employee had approached this Court and obtained an interim order which had been referred to supra. The learned counsel also made elaborate submissions relating to several proceedings and had explained the remedies available and different provisions of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 as originally stood and as amended from time to time and would maintain that at the stage of suspension, since no other remedy is available, Civil Court is competent to entertain a suit of this nature. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to different Regulations in this regard. Reliance was placed on Rajasthan state Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna kant, AIR 1995 SC 1715 , Tayabbhai m. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries private Limited, (1997) 3 SCC 443 , Sri Balaji Rice Mill v. Rice Mill and Flour Mill Workers Union, 2003 (6) ALD 731 , P. Somasundaram v. Labour Court, Guntur, 1968 ALT (NRC) 8, bombay Union of Journalists v. Hindu, bombay, AIR 1963 SC 318 , Kripa Printing press, Hyderabad v. Labour Court, hyderabad, 1959 (2) An. WR (NRC) 59, padarthy Ratnam and Company v. Industrial tribunal, Guntur, 1958 (2) An. WR 421, jitendra Nath Biswas v. M/s. Empire of india and Ceylone Tea Company and another (1989) 3 SCC 582 , Chandrakant Tukaram nikam and others v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and another, (2002) 2 SCC 542 , and Vijay singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 (3) LLJ supp. 457. The learned Counsel also had explained the scope and ambit of the Writ petition No. 13419/2003 already filed against the orders made therein. ( 5 ) PER contra, Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, the learned Counsel representing the corporation made elaborate submissions that under the Regulations, hierarchy of authorities are specified and the remedies are available to the employee. Even otherwise since the employee is a workman, remedies are available under the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 and definitely his remedy is not before a Civil Court. Even otherwise since the employee is a workman, remedies are available under the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 and definitely his remedy is not before a Civil Court. The learned Counsel also in detail had explained the conduct of the employee and also had taken this Court through different provisions of the A. P. State road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and different Regulations of the Corporation governing the field. The learned Counsel also had explained that if any interim order is to be granted at this stage, it would be definitely in conflict with the order already made in W. P. No. 13419/2003 and hence in any view of the matter, the same cannot be permitted. The learned Counsel made elaborate submissions and would contend that if such employees are directed to invoke the jurisdiction of ordinary Civil courts, then serious prejudice would be caused to the Corporation. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex court referred in Chandrakant Tukarnam nikam and others v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and another case (supra) and also the view expressed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C. R. P. No. 182/ 2003 and 5599/2002 dated 17-10-2003. ( 6 ) HEARD both the Counsel at length and also perused the material available on record. ( 7 ) AT the outset, it may be stated that when the original Court had decided the main suit on the preliminary issue of the maintainability of the suit and a regular appeal A. S. No. 1/94 was filed which is pending disposal on the file of Senior Civil judge, Kavali, at this stage it would not be proper for this Court to express any opinion though both the Counsel had advanced elaborate submissions in this regard. In view of the same, it is better to leave this question to be decided by the appellate Court, the learned Senior Civil judge, Kavali before whom the said appeal A. S. No. 1/2004 is pending disposal at present. However, it is also pertinent to note that the employee filed W. P. No. 13419/ 2003 which was dismissed on 14-7-2003 wherein it was observed : ". . . . However as it is stated in the counter-affidavit that the charge-sheet is already filed, the respondent authorities are directed to conduct and complete enquiry as expeditiously as possible. However, it is also pertinent to note that the employee filed W. P. No. 13419/ 2003 which was dismissed on 14-7-2003 wherein it was observed : ". . . . However as it is stated in the counter-affidavit that the charge-sheet is already filed, the respondent authorities are directed to conduct and complete enquiry as expeditiously as possible. " The Counsel for the Corporation would contend that this aspect was suppressed and if any interim order is granted at this stage it would amount to making a conflicting order. ( 8 ) IT is no doubt true that the Courts are expected to maintain comity and no conflicting orders can be passed. However it is explained that the writ petition was filed questioning the suspension only on the ground that the competent authority had not passed the order and the order did not contain any signature. Except this ground no other ground was raised. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the main appeal A. S. No. 1/2004 on the file of Senior civil Judge, Kavali is pending disposal and in view of the fact that while admitting crp No. 80/2004 this Court already had made an order in CMP No. 311/2004, it would be just and proper to maintain the said order with a direction to the learned senior Civil Judge, Kavali to dispose of as No. 1/2004 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order without granting any adjournments in view of the urgency explained by the learned counsel for the Corporation. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, during the pendnecy of the Appeal AS No. 1/2004, the order made in CMP No. 311/2004 in CRP No. 80/2004 dated 8-1-2004 would be operative and the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali is hereby directed to dispose of the main Appeal as No. 1/2004 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The civil revision petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.