chamber are liable for the delay referred to. Nor did the appellant prove that the alleged delay led to the breach of the rights of the Judiciary employees and prevented them from filing remedies. c) Nor was it in any way evident that the magistrates of the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court, when ruling that the de facto strike action was unlawful, had acted in the interest of and in collusion with the Supreme Court of Justice to harm the Judiciary employees (…) Because it is obviously inadmissible, the appeal for amparo filed by the Judiciary employees via their legal representative is dismissed. 28 53. On that same day, the Workers Union appealed the judgment and, on June 19, 1997, the Constitutional Court upheld the judgment being appealed, indicating as follows: (…) The authority being challenged in the ruling of May 13 of that same year dismissed the motion for annulment that was filed and, on that same date, ordered the action being challenged by declaring that the de facto strike carried out by the workers was unlawful. Both rulings, the one dismissing the annulment requested and the one declaring that the action was unlawful were notified to the appellant on the fourteenth day of the same month and year. It is deemed that the authority being challenged should not have issued the last two rulings on the same date because, by doing so, it violated Article 365 of the Labor Code, on the basis of which it is inferred, according to its interpretation, that it is possible, within twenty-four hours the notification, for the aggrieved party to files an appeal and it would not be until after this delay had elapsed that the parties would have used it or, in the event they had not used it, until it had been resolved, when the ruling that is susceptible to being challenged becomes final and only then can the following ruling be issued. Despite what was considered above, it must be pointed out that, if the appellant observed that the action of the authority being challenged entailed a violation of the law it should have used the ordinary remedy (annulment) as provided for by law to challenge the ruling being questioned and by not doing so the appellant failed to observe the principle of definitiveness which subjects the petition for protection on constitutional grounds to prior exhaustion of ordinary remedies (…). Because of that, the appeal for amparo is obviously inadmissible, because of which it must be dismissed.29 54. On February 23, 1999, the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court granted the motion for the appeal filed by the petitioners against the ruling of May 13, 1996, because of which it had to be heard by the Supreme Court of Justice. 55. On March 17, 1999, the Supreme Court of Justice decided it would not hear the motion for appeal arguing that the ruling being challenged was issued by a court comprising several judges (tribunal colegiado) and, therefore, it could not be appealed. Regarding this, it stated the following: That the final part of the first paragraph of Article 140 of the Law on the Judiciary (amended by Article 10 of Decree 112-97 of the Congress of the Republic) establishes the following: “The ruling can be appealed except in those cases in which the laws governing special matters exclude this remedy or when it involves preliminary proceedings ruled on by courts comprising several judges (tribunal colegiado) and because, in the case being examined herein, it has been observed that the ruling being challenged by an appeal was issued by a court of several judges, that is, the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court, it is concluded that the ruling was not admissible for appeal, because of which the present Court is not able to hear the above-mentioned appeal and it must be ruled in accordance with the law. 30 56. On March 20, 1999, the petitioners filed a motion for amparo with the Constitutional Court, arguing that the Law on the Judiciary is not applicable because their right to appeal is contained in Article 6 of the Law on Unionization and Strike Regulations for State Employees and must be governed by the special law for the case, which is this latter. 28 Annex 11. February 18, 1997 Ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice, Chamber of Amparo Appeals and Preliminary Trials. Annex 8 to the brief of November 28, 2000 from the petitioners. 29 Annex 12. June 19, 1997 Ruling of the Constitutional Court. Annex 9 to the brief of November 28, 2000 from the petitioners. 30 Annex 13. Judgment of the CSJ implementing the dismissals. Annex 15 to the updated initial petition of November 28, 2000. 8