Sri D.Balaraju, counsel for the respondent appears and states that there is no wilful or deliberate disobedience of the Court order. It is stated that even by the date of passing of the order, namely 31.12.2019, there was no lay-off in the factory. The lay-off was lifted on 20.11.2019 itself. Therefore, by the date of passing of the order, it is stated that the lay-off has already been lifted. Learned counsel also points out that a statutory notice has been issued as required under law. On 20.11.2019, a notice was issued lifting the lay-off and that it has ended on 20.11.2019. Learned counsel also points out that to the notice issued by the counsel for the petitioner, a reply has been issued informing him that the lay-off has been lifted. Lastly, it is also contended that on 25.11.2019 itself, an agreement has been entered into between the Management of the company and the recognized Unions about the lifting of the lay-off. This agreement is signed before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada on 25.11.2019 itself which is an action prior to the impugned order. Therefore, learned counsel argues that stay order issued does not have any effect and the lay-off has already been lifted prior to the date of the order. He submits that there is neither “wilful” nor “deliberate disobedience” of the order passed.
