Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the docket order dated 27.06.2012 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, whereby the un-numbered Execution Petition filed by him in I.D. No.300 of 2005 was returned. He seeks a direction to the said Court to number and entertain the said Execution Petition in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1982 as a JSS Attendant in Nizam Sugars Limited at Hindupur. After the plant and machinery of Nizam Sugars Limited at Hindupur was purchased by M/s. Sri Renuka Sugars Limited, Belgaum, Karnataka, the second respondent, the petitioner’s services were terminated by it. Aggrieved thereby, he raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No.300 of 2005 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. By its Award dated 14.02.2011, the Labour Court set aside the removal of the petitioner and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service, attendant benefits and 50% back wages. 3. Challenging the said Award, the second respondent company filed W.P. No.15579 of 2011 before this Court. By order dated 10.06.2011 passed in W.P.M.P. No.18670 of 2011 in W.P. No.15579 of 2011, a learned Judge of this Court granted interim suspension of the impugned Award, subject to the condition that the second respondent company comply with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act of 1947) upon the filing of an affidavit by the petitioner that he was not gainfully employed anywhere. The said interim order was confirmed in appeal by Order dated 06.01.2012 in W.A. No.492 of 2011. The petitioner claims to have filed an affidavit as directed by this Court stating that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere. However, as the second respondent company failed to comply with Section 17-B of the Act of 1947, the petitioner filed an Execution Petition before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, seeking execution of the Award dated 14.02.2011 passed in I.D. No.300 of 2005. 4. In the first instance, the E.P. was returned on 10.04.2012 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to how it was maintainable in the light of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P. No.15579 of 2011. Certain other objections were also raised. 4. In the first instance, the E.P. was returned on 10.04.2012 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to how it was maintainable in the light of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P. No.15579 of 2011. Certain other objections were also raised. Having complied with the other objections, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in so far as the maintainability of the E.P. was concerned, the interim suspension granted by this Court was subject to compliance with Section 17-B of the Act of 1947 and as the second respondent company had failed to comply with the condition, the E.P. was maintainable. However, the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, again returned the E.P. on 27.06.2012 stating as follows: “If the respondent/management has not implemented the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.M.P. No.18670/11 in W.P.No.15579/11 dated 10.6.2011, that the petitioner proceed to Hon’ble High Court for implementation of High Court order.” Aggrieved by the return of his E.P. with the above endorsement, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Though the second respondent company is made a party to the Writ Petition, it is to be noticed that the petitioner’s E.P has not even been numbered by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. The issue before this Court therefore squarely turns upon the action of the Court below in returning the petitioner’s E.P. at the preliminary stage. The Writ Petition is thus amenable to disposal without putting the second respondent company on notice, as it has no role to play in the matter at this stage and no relief is sought against it in this Writ Petition. 6. In the State of Andhra Pradesh, Section 11-B of the Act of 1947 confers the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal with the same power that a Civil Court has, to execute its Awards. By virtue of this provision, the petitioner filed the subject E.P. before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. Therein, the petitioner adverted to the pendency of W.P. No.15579 of 2011 filed by the second respondent company against the Award dated 14.02.2011 in I.D. No.300 of 2005. He also referred to the fact that this Court had granted interim suspension of the said Award subject to a condition, i.e., compliance with Section 17-B of the Act of 1947. Therein, the petitioner adverted to the pendency of W.P. No.15579 of 2011 filed by the second respondent company against the Award dated 14.02.2011 in I.D. No.300 of 2005. He also referred to the fact that this Court had granted interim suspension of the said Award subject to a condition, i.e., compliance with Section 17-B of the Act of 1947. As the second respondent did not choose to abide by this conditional order, the petitioner sought implementation of the Award by directing the second respondent company to reinstate him in service with full wages, failing which he sought attachment and sale of the scheduled properties belonging to the second respondent company. 7. The order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. No.18670 of 2011 in W.P. No.15579 of 2011 makes it explicit that the interim suspension of the Award dated 14.02.2011 in I.D. No.300 of 2005 was subject to the condition of the second respondent company complying with Section 17-B of the Act of 1947. Once the petitioner herein filed an affidavit stating that he was not gainfully employed, failure to abide by this conditional order would mean that the interim suspension granted by this Court no longer enured to the benefit of the second respondent company which had filed the said Writ Petition. As the interim suspension of the Award was subject to a condition and such condition was not complied with, the inevitable consequence was that the interim suspension no longer continued. The fallout thereof was that the impugned Award was then freed of the suspension and became executable. The understanding of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, however, is completely opposed and contrary to this legal position. The endorsement dated 27.06.2012 made by the Presiding Officer of the said Court is to the effect that the petitioner should seek implementation of the interim order in W.P. No.15579 of 2011. This observation of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, is at variance with the clear language employed in the interim order dated 10.06.2011 passed in W.P. No.15579 of 2011. 8. Viewed thus, the action of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, in returning the E.P. filed by the petitioner on this mistaken understanding of the legal position cannot be sustained. The docket order passed by the said Court on 27.06.2012 in the un-numbered E.P. filed by the petitioner in I.D. No.300 of 2005 is accordingly quashed. 8. Viewed thus, the action of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, in returning the E.P. filed by the petitioner on this mistaken understanding of the legal position cannot be sustained. The docket order passed by the said Court on 27.06.2012 in the un-numbered E.P. filed by the petitioner in I.D. No.300 of 2005 is accordingly quashed. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, is directed to entertain the said E.P. and if the same is found to be in order otherwise, it shall number the E.P. and proceed with the same in accordance with law. 9. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The Registry is directed to return to the petitioner the original Execution Petition filed along with this Writ Petition. W.P.M.P. No.26679 of 2012 shall stand dismissed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.