APHC010309082002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 7667 of 2002 Bench Sr.No:-15 [3506] M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr.P SRI RAGHU RAM Advocate for Respondent: GP FOR LABOUR CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 13th November 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “to issue a writ, order or direction, more special, one in the nature of Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the 1st Respondent Tribunal from proceeding further with the I.T.I.D.(C) No.11/2002 filed by the 2nd Respondent and quash it as without jurisdiction and to pass….” 2. Heard Ms.Prathipati Navya Leela Poojitha, learned counsel, representing Sri P.Sri Raghuram, learned counsel for the petitioner, and none appeared for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of 2 CGR, J. W.P.No.18006 of 2002 coordinate Bench of this Court in I.L.Naidu v. Union of India 1 , therefore, the present writ petition may be allowed. 4. On perusal of the judgment cited above, it appears that this Court has rendered finding that workmen were not entitled to benefits under Section 25(h) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short, “the I.D. Act”), as their discharge from service does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 25(oo) of the I.D. Act. 5. The prayer that was sought before the Tribunal was for declaring the forced and coerced resignation to the retrenchment, and therefore, set aside the same with all consequential benefits. 6. The unit of the petitioner has to be closed on account of the environmental issues, and the discharge or termination of workmen was on account of bona fide closure of undertaking, which does not amount to retrenchment. This Court, in dealing with similar issues in aforesaid judgment, has issued writ of prohibition against the adjudication of various Industrial Dispute Cases on the file of the 1st respondent herein. 7. In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed by issuing writ of prohibition from proceeding with adjudication of I.T.I.D.(C) No.11 of 1 2003 (2) ALD 221 = 2003 (2) ALT 470 3 CGR, J. W.P.No.18006 of 2002 2002 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour court, Visakhapatnam. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:13.11.2025. cs