ORDER :- The award, dated 23.2.2006, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur (for short 'the Labour Court') in LD.No.188 of 2000 is challenged in this writ petition. 2. The 2nd respondent (for short 'the respondent') is a union of workers, said to have been engaged by the petitioners Devasthanam in its Forest Department. Earlier, it approached this Court by filing W.P. No.20761 of 1997 seeking the relief of regularization of the services of its members. The writ petition was disposed of on 26.6.2000, leaving it open to the respondent to work out its remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). The respondent presented the I.D. before the Labour Court, under Section 9-A of the Act, with a prayer to direct the petitioners to regularize the services of its members furnished in Annexure-I of the petition, with effect from the date of their entry into service, and to award consequential benefits. The petitioners opposed the application on several grounds. Through the award, the Labour Court partly allowed the I.D. It held that the members of the respondent are not entitled for regularization of services as Forest Mazdoors, but they are eligible for wages on par with the employees of the same category, working with the petitioners. The relief of continuity of service and attendant benefits was also granted. The award was published as required under the Act. 3. The petitioners contends that the respondent did not approach the Government, seeking any reference under Section 10 of the Act and curiously filed an application under Section 9-A of the Act, which has absolutely no relevance, with the subject matter. It is also urged that the Labour Court did not make an attempt to understand the scope of the relevant provisions of the Act. The relationship of employer and employee vis-a-vis the members of the respondent, is denied. 4. The respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the occasion for it to approach the Labour Court arose, on account of the specific directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.20761 of 1997. It is contended that though Section 9-A of the Act was mentioned by mistake, the Labour Court has treated the application under the relevant provision and that the award does not warrant interference. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 6. It is contended that though Section 9-A of the Act was mentioned by mistake, the Labour Court has treated the application under the relevant provision and that the award does not warrant interference. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 6. The Act was enacted, basically with an object of addressing the general issues and disputes, that arise between workmen and industrial establishments. Initially, the grievance or dispute of an individual workman did not constitute an 'industrial dispute' as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act. With the introduction of Section 2-A of the Act in the year 1965, the dispute in relation to an individual workman was also treated as 'industrial dispute', in cases of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination. Even after this amendment, the approach to Labour Court was restricted to the reference, to be made by the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Act. Obviously realizing that individual workman, whose case falls under Section 2-A of the Act, may not be able to pursue his grievance with the Government by seeking reference, the A.P. State Legislature inserted sub-section (2) in Section 2-A in the year 1987, paving the way for individual workman, whose case is covered by Section 2-A, to approach the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, directly. Except this, there is no other provision, which enables workmen or for that matter, the trade unions to directly approach the Labour Court. Section 33-C(2) of the Act, however, stands on a different footing, inasmuch as it is in the form of execution of an undisputed legal obligation or an award, which has already been passed. 7. The respondent is said to be the union of forest workers of the petitioners Devasthanam. It approached this Court by filing WP No.20761 of 2007 with a prayer to direct the petitioners herein to regularize the services of its members. The writ petition was disposed of, leaving it open to the respondent to work out its remedies under the provisions of the Act. That, naturally meant, a reference under Section 10 of the Act be sought and the same be referred to a Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court, by the appropriate Government. The writ petition was disposed of, leaving it open to the respondent to work out its remedies under the provisions of the Act. That, naturally meant, a reference under Section 10 of the Act be sought and the same be referred to a Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court, by the appropriate Government. Curiously the respondent filed an application directly before the Labour Court, that too, by invoking Section 9-A of the Act That provision has absolutely nothing to do with the initiation of proceedings before a Labour Court. It only mandates that an employer shall not alter the conditions of service of its workmen, without giving 21 days of notice to the affected workmen. Certain other conditions are also incorporated. It is un-understandable as to how the Labour Court entertained such in application, which runs contrary to the specific provisions of the Act. The relief granted by the Labour Court is also somewhat strange. It directed that the principle of equal pay for equal work must be implemented in favour of the members of the respondent. Therefore, the whole exercise undertaken by the Labour Court is untenable. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned award is set aside. It is however left open to the respondent to work out its remedies in accordance with law viz., seeking a reference under Section 10 of the Act to the Labour Court. As and when such reference is made, it shall be dealt with on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made in this set of proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs.