IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.3546 of 2008 Between: K. Gangaiah, S/o. Venkatanarsu, R/o. H.No.1-1-46, Sasamahila, Near Venkat Sai Theatre, Karimnagar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Bharat Sanchar Nigham Limited, Rep by its General Manager, Department of Telecommunications, Near Natraj Talkies, Karimnagar - 500 001. 2 Bharat Sanchar Nigham Limited, Rep by its Sub-Divisional Engineer, Department of Telecommunications, New Telephone Bhavan, Besides Post Office, Karimnagar - 500 501. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to call for the records from the respondents and issue an appropriate writ order or direction particularly one the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the oral order dated 12-11-2007 terminating services of the petitioner as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, in violation of mandatory provisions under section 25-F and section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, in violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitutional if India and grant all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SMT C. VANI REDDY The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.3546 OF 2008 ORDER: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already raised a dispute in I.D.No.73 of 2005 before the Central Industrial Tribunal at Hyderabad, seeking redressal of his grievance, and the same is pending adjudication. He, therefore, seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. Permission is accorded. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. However, the Central Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, is directed to dispose of the I.D. raised by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _________​__________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 29th October, 2008. IBL